![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
As an example: if a document out of one working group was asked to create a registry for something, should a document from a different working group using the same underlying technology also create a registry?
This question is currently important to me too. Please IETF/IANA experienced people comment?
It's my personal believe that the IETF standards form a body of work, rather than just being individual specifications, and that some level of effort should be put in to make sure that the individual documents fit into the body. We've done some of that through mechanisms like the RFC 2119 language and the IANA considerations guide, so I think there is some community consensus that this is useful.
Yes.
Working out where the consistency bar should be set is sometimes easy, as documents fit comfortably within our community's shared sense of the range. When it is hard, though, the effort and time it takes to get things agreed is enormous, and the ill-mannered can play a war of attrition to get their way.
To get this back to the form of a question: what is the right value of consistent for the statement: "The IETF should produce a consistent set of specifications?" Same language, format, and no more? Anything already documented in an RFC like 2219? Same set of core assumptions/built from the same tools? Something less? Something more? Something along a different axis entirely?
But there may be exceptions. jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.