Re: Initial Structure

At 06:10 PM 7/26/00 +0100, Andy Wardley wrote:
> > We still need an RFC format.  Dan was going to come up with a draft
> > format.

I got mail from several folks telling me they were working on formats too, 
including one in XML, so I held off. If something's not forthcoming by 
tomorrow I'll post my (heavily lifted from the standard IETF RFC) template.

>If he wants to punt, I'll do it tonight.  Right now I'm
> > picturing:
> >  - Abstract
> >  - Description of the change
> >  - List of possible implementations (doesn't have to be at the bit
> >    level unless you're talking a bit-level change) that were discussed,
> >    with quick summary of pros and cons.
> >  - Suggested choice of implementation.
>
>Perhaps also:
>
>    - Intent        (why make the change?)
>    - Impact        (what else might break?)

I'd make some of these sections opional--an RFPC on, say, foreign objects 
in perl may not have as many sections as one on redoing the way we store 
scalars internally.

I'm most interested in WHAT, WHY, and HOW. (or, if you prefer, quick 
summary, rationale, technical details) Things like actual code, a reference 
bibliography (for previous attempts, successful or not, or papers on 
theory), embedding/threading/reentrancy impact, security impact, and 
suchlike things are also useful but not always appropriate.

					Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[email protected]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk