Subject: RE: [INDEP] Workload management ( was Re: Queue time? )

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:32:20 -0400

Keith,

	I agree.  However, Informational RFCs are presumably about
information.  I suspect that we're concerned here that people will
use the informational independent RFC publication process for some
purpose other than to provide information.

	So, instead of hemming and hawing about the quality of any
particular proposal as something other than information, how about
if we require any such submission to be strictly informational?  If
we do that, then we can apply the criteria that people agree should
be applied to information.

--
Eric 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:25 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: [INDEP] Workload management ( was Re: Queue time? )
--> 
--> > Keith,
--> > 
--> > 	Can you, or someone else, tell me in what way terms like
--> > "stupid", "well-thought-out", "orthodox" or "brain damaged" 
--> > apply to _information_?
--> 
--> for information, I'd want to see criteria like relevance, accuracy,
--> precision, and the quality with which the information were
--> labeled/categorized.
--> 
--> Keith
--> 

_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:44:30 -0400

> information. 

and they're presumably requests for comments, also.
somehow the two concepts "information" and "RFC" seem mutually
exclusive.

I don't think we're accustomed to insisting that Informational RFCs be
purely informational, nor do I think it would serve our purposes to
insist on it.