Re: WG Last Call: a batch of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Pekka Savola wrote, regarding cutting RFC 3584
from the ops document survey:

> Well, someone sharp-eyed could some calling us and complain why
> it was not included .. :-)

True, I am living proof :-)  On the other hand, you do have your
policy to fall back on ("we didn't survey BCPs or Informational
RFCs"), along with a reasonable justification for that policy
("because the cost-to-reward ratio was deemed too low, given the
available resources").

> .. but just removing it is fine with me, and simpler; if you
> feel (as an OPS expert) that's the best thing to do, it's fine
> for us I think.

Well, the main purpose of the survey was to uncover documents that
needs to be fixed.  Since this one doesn't need to be fixed, the
only value that there is in having it in the document is to prove
that the survey was reasonably complete.  Well, we know we've done
our homework, so I don't think that matters very much.

If the OPS ADs are OK with leaving RFC 3584 out of the survey then
so am I.

Mike