Yes, it introduces at least five surprising and new concepts:
1: "rough consensus" is determined by taking 1000 default YES-
opinions, and then consider up to 20 explicit objections as
irrelevant.
[YJS] Humorous, but not what we said.
We suggested taking a show of hands amongst the thousands
who read IDs and RFC, and not only among the five or so very
vocal people who respond to emails on the IETF general
list within 5 minutes (even on January first) .
2: Folks who can't read MS Word documents are also irrelevant.
It's the "most 'standard' document exchange language on the
Internet". (Actually all its versions are from the people
who invented the Internet, please don't forget to submit an
IPR note).
[YJS] I don't really believe that there are many people who
can not read MS Word documents. And I believe that the
number of people who can read neither Word nor PDF
is infinitesimally small.
[YJS] There are free viewers for both of these formats
for every operating system imaginable, and all popular
web browsers have integral support or a free an add-on.
[YJS] But I guess there may be a few people who write
their own OS and browsers and only read ASCII format.
Perhaps we can assume that these two or three people
left who can read neither Word nor PDF can read HTML
with embedded gifs, and suppy a converter to that format?
3: Discussing MS Word and empty security considerations are no
contradiction. Not mentioning RFC 3285 at all is no issue.
[YJS] This was a draft put together to start discussion.
We will add references later.
[YJS] Was the issue of a security section a substantive
one or a nit-picking one? If the latter, we will add a
content-free one in a later version.
If the former, please explain how reading IDs in PDF
is more of a security risk than reading the ASCII version
in a browser.
4: An enumeration of "virtually all other SDOs" consisting of
"ITU-T, MFA, and many other SDOs" confirms again the "clear
consensus" already established in point 1.
[YJS] No it is just to point out that any IETF participant
who participates works in ANY other SDO
(or works in ANY company, or reads data-sheets or white-papers from
ANY company, or ...) has the ability to read either Word or PDF.
5: Empty informative references are a good replacement for any
IANA considerations. A normative 2119 reference without (?)
using any 2119 keyword at all might be also new. OTOH the
draft talks about 3933 without reference,
[YJS] Already discussed above.
For the statement that "many contributors to the thread"
suggested MS Word among other additional formats
I must have missed many articles in the thread.
[YJS] I will have to sort this one out
(this line wasn't mine and my co-authors are out on New Years vacation).
We did get quite a lot of off-list support
and frequently the subject line was copied from messages on the list.
This makes it confusing as to what was said in public,
and what was seen only by us.
Y(J)S
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf