Folks,
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
-bis work.
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
text
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...
d/
ps. this shouldn't need saying, but sensitivities get high: obviously
whatever
the chairs rule as wg consensus is what goes into the doc.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html