Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt

To: "Mark Atwood" <mra at pobox.com>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
From: Marshall Rose <mrose at DBC.MTVIEW.CA.US>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:36:02 -0800
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <m3d6xo8mon.fsf@khem.blackfedora.com>
Organization: Dover Beach Consulting, Inc.
References: <OF3C303FF2.F8995397-ON85256B8A.0068F043@incentivesystems.com> <m3d6xo8mon.fsf@khem.blackfedora.com>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

> Counting RFCs looks like it's bad the same way that pure LOC counts
> are bad.

err, okay, i guess.

however, it may be useful for folks to actually read the draft before making comments... thus far, i've only seen two folks with comments who claim to have actually read the thing.

as an author of the draft, i don't think "Counting RFCs" was a goal, or even something we explicitly did...

/mtr

Follow-Ups:
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
  - From: Graham Klyne
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
  - From: Matt Crawford

References:
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
  - From: John Stracke
- Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
  - From: Mark Atwood

Prev by Date: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
Next by Date: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
Previous by thread: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
Next by thread: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.