Re: Initial Structure
[email protected] ("Kurt D. Starsinic")
| Newsgroups | perl.bootstrap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 10:04:04AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> We still need an RFC format. Dan was going to come up with a draft
> format. 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.
I don't think these final two items belong in the RFC; in the best of
all possible worlds, this wouldn't even be discussed at the time an RFC
is created. I feel that an RFC should list issues to be considered in
implementing a solution, such as scalability and security.
I also think that a justification for the proposed change should be
part of the RFC.
Peace,
* Kurt Starsinic ([email protected]) ---------- Senior Network Engineer *
| `The right to be heard does not automatically include the right |
| to be taken seriously.' -- Hubert Humphrey |