Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts
should have sway over the ability to change those drafts.
Hold sway != have a say. I think that people who have some
skin in the game should be considered carefully. What I read
here is dismissal (= "hold sway").
...
Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on anybody's
radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and completely.
Doing that is devaluing running code which last time I checked counts
for something. I'd really like to deploy something for the reflector,
but this silly last minute name changing makes that all pointless.
You originally posited dire consequences that changing a name broke a
service. I pointed that there is no service, from the standpoint of the
IETF. That some folk are pursuing proprietary activities is entirely
fine. That they base those proprietary efforts on unstable public
documents is also fine. What is not fine is the view that their private
efforts should have any meaningful effect on group consensus to make
improvements in the drafts.
I didn't "posit", I *experienced*.
Basically, I believe you are confusing the benefit of getting data from
prototypes, versus the more extensive damage done by changing an
installed global service.
Dave: did you even know that this was an issue until I pointed it out?
Instead of getting all defensive about legalistic interpretations of
whether you have the absolute right to change anything you feel like
changing, you might consider the good will of companies and developers
who look at this kind of gratuitous last minute completely incompatible
changes with complete disbelief that the standards potato people haven't
got a clue about real life again.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html