Stephen Farrell wrote:
> So I think this thread seems to have descended into the
> fairly pointless and unproductive category. Maybe let's
> leave it there while Barry and I tot up the responses
> to the concensus call and see what we (as chairs) make
> of that.
>
> In particular:
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>>> A number of the latest set of posts indicate that some folks haven't read
>>> RFCX
>>> 4871, and I don't mean "carefully". It almost looks as if they haven't read
>>> it
>>> at all. Worse, the point that is constantly being ignored was proffered
>>> quite
>>> clearly in the Errata draft. So it appears they haven't read that document
>>> either.
>>>
>
> Dave - you know that a lot of the folks that disagree with you here
> have read and contributed substantially to 4871. Saying otherwise
> isn't helpful.
>
>
>> ::snort::
>>
> ...
>
>> This is rich.
>>
>>
>
> Mike - please take a deep breath before hitting "send." Just
> being annoyed on the list is also not at all helpful. There
> are clearly a bunch of folks who have contributed to 4871
> that do agree with the approach Dave is espousing here so
> just labelling that revisionism only serves to aggravate and
> won't get us closer to resolving the issue.
>
They may agree with Dave, but that does not alter the fact that
what Dave is saying does not match the history or the intent of the
document. I'll add that it is Dave who is using history here to prop
up his argument. That is all the more problematic when it simply
isn't the case.
In any case, I'd like to understand the process by which a substantial
change in semantics is allowed under the rubric of "errata". IIRC,
errata did not even exist until relatively recently, so any other time
this would have required that the document be recycled. To my mind,
this looks a lot like the overall IETF process is being short circuited
in a last-man-standing kind of way. Errata should not be a vehicle to
fly under the radar with fundamental semantic changes. The "primary
output" errata clearly qualifies.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
