Barry Leiba wrote:
As chair, I note that any attempt to use the "errata" format of the
update document to *remove* text will be fraught. The text will still
exist (and will, in fact, be repeated in this document).
As a participant, my inclination would be to have the update replace
the whole Appendix D like this:
But I could also accept leaving Appendix D as it is for now, and
dealing with it in the 4871bis effort.
I'd like to strongly encourage the working group to defer this change until the
First, there isn't any urgency, since we do not know of any immediate --
nevermind serious -- problems being caused by the current text.
Second, we are about to enter a -bis phase and so we have an opportunity to
review this issue with more deliberation.
On the average, I believe a working group should take time to reflect on
conceptual changes. And even simply removing -- nevermind modifying -- all
related to a concept such as MUA handling tends to benefit from the time that
can be taken to iterate on the text and reflect on versions. Precipitous
changes -- anything done quickly and in one pass -- invites poor understanding.
I say this in spite of being vigorously in favor of a basic change to this part
of the spec. I just think that this phase isn't the right way to get it done.
And gosh, we have such a convenient way coming up immediately...
ps. this shouldn't need saying, but sensitivities get high: obviously
the chairs rule as wg consensus is what goes into the doc.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to