Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com> wrote:
Guessing what each of us means is not the way to develop protocols,
because we are certain to discover, much later, that our guesses were
wrong.
Which is, of course, why RFC's are written.
The problem then is that the RFC's don't fully define the protocol
under discussion. So we are left with guesses and ambiguities. It is
somtimes possible to refer to "original intent", but not everyone has
been involved in IETF for 20 years, and not everyone has access to the
original authors of a protocol.
The vast majority of the problems I've seen in ASRG involve people
having strong opinions about the intent of vague documents.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix either problem.
We all need to start using precise, consistent language and we all need
to use it the same way.
We are suffering under the barrier of communicating via a shared
language. Everyone "knows" what the words mean, and confusion ensues.
"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
- well-known politician.
Alan DeKok.