ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Nested comments, the sequel

1992-02-09 17:33:37
Erik Naggum writes:

    It is now clear that richtext is a political, much more than a
technical part of MIME.

This is actually partially correct, and I'm glad to see that you have finally
figured this out. We're in closure mode with MIME now. This mode was agreed
upon and a consensus for doing it (and also the general procedure for _how_ to
do it) was reached at the Santa Fe meeting. And a large (and growing) number of
people on this list have been arguing for pressing forward with closure on this
document.

Closure mode means that we reject any suggestions that will delay the document.
Good suggestions in some cases (like Nathaniel's proposed change to RichText,
for instance) are not being considered. In addition we try to avoid any
suggestions that would dramatically change the content of the document, simply
because there's a chance it would require another pass through the Working
Group.

Closure mode also means that we'll do anything that is necessary to get the
document to be acceptable to the IESG and IAB. We lost the reference to
RFC-CHAR for this reason. I don't like the loss of this reference, and I have
publicly stated this time after time. But it was removed, and this was a
political decision on the part of the authors. We felt that such a move
was necessary compromise to make it possible to reach closure.

The result is that this _is_ a time for politics. Technical review and
suggestions for change are always welcome, but the things we're learning now
are being stored away, to be addressed later when the time for technical change
comes around again. I have a whole pile of minor technical nits myself (none of
them mean making anything resembling substantial changes of course) that I
won't release until later. I don't want to defocus this effort at reaching
closure.

But all this doesn't mean that RichText is a political item per se. It is a
technical proposal and stands on its technical merits.  Your postings on its
technical merits have been noted and will be addressed later. (Of course your
critical assertion turned out to be wrong, which largely nullifies the 
extremely small amount of technical content in your postings. But other
people have made valid technical comments and these will be addressed.)

The fact that we are now operating in a political manner in no way
changes the origins of RichText, or of the rest of MIME, for that matter.

It should be separated from MIME, and looked
at by people who care about how languages are designed, how they
should be implemented, and how expressive they are.  The authors of
the MIME draft are obviously incompetent for the task, and unwilling
to admit it, to boot.

You're a pretty amusing guy, Erik. Your response is as always totally and
completely in character -- no technical content whatsoever, just a whole bunch
more emotion.

You really ought to check into Nathaniel's credentials as well as my own before
you make comments like this. But that probably would have stopped you from
making them, and would have robbed my morning of this humorous note that has
given me more than one chuckle to start the day. I'm not going to tell you why
this is so funny; it will be better for you to find it out yourself.

    I'm glad you got a chance to vent your spleen, Ned, and I guess I
should have expected it.

But you left me no alternative, really. Your constant ad hominem attacks
finally had to be dealt with. And I figured that I had better do it since I am
less emotionally involved in RichText than Nathaniel is.

However, you also made it quite clear that
richtext doesn't stand on its own merits.  I shall have to go back to
the discussions after richtext was released, and see whether richtext
has been reviewed publicly at all, and that it has not been received
with an equivalent of your pitiful flame.

Please pay particular attention to the minutes of the IETF meetings and the
resolutions about RichText contained therein. Pay close attention to the
significant changes that have occurred because of feedback from the community
as well. Once you have done this you're welcome to try and justify the notion
that nobody has reviewed or commented on RichText in this group. It will
be difficult to explain why RichText changed so much though, but you're welcome
to try.

    From previous comments about the process with which richtext was
"adopted", I think the IESG should demand a separation of richtext
from MIME on procedural grounds alone.  This thing needs more review,
and it won't, if there are people less flame-resistant than I am.

Once again you prove that you don't read anything I've said in numerous
postings. This is what I have been arguing for all along. Of course RichText
needs to be reviewed! But it needs to be reviewed in the operational arena, not
in the 822 Working Group.

    If I were in your shoes, as author, and didn't know what I had
written, and didn't even care about, I'd mortally ashamed, not just a
little embarrassed.

Again, I don't want to dignify your more frivolous assertions with responses,
so all I'll say is go back and reread my posting to see why the premises of
this statement are so absurd.

And as for being ashamed, I see nothing to be ashamed about, and your postings
have done absolutely nothing to change my view on this.

Erik, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. I may be in a less
friendly mood later and I might even start some serious flaming, and I don't
want to end up with my postings looking like yours. So I'll tell you what I'm
going to do. This is the last posting of yours that I'm going to read. If you
decide to post additional material that actually has some technical content,
please mark it as such in the Subject: line. Those postings I'll happily read.
We won't act on them at this time since we're in closure mode, but we will
review such suggestions fairly and reasonably when the time for additional
technical changes comes around again. Given the tone of your messages I think
this position is a lot more fair to you than you deserve.

                                        Ned

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>