Re: BATV pseudo-Last Call

ned+ietf-smtp(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
> >   Make it crystal clear, right up front, how you go about to
> > implement this, and leave the technical details and dry, formal
> > specifications, to some other part of the document."
>
> Very nicely put. This is the main thing I think is wrong with the document.
Nicely put, but I'm not sure I know what it translates into.  No doubt I'm 
just having some sort of allergy-induced fuzzi-headedness, but I am not 
immediately retrieving examples from other specifications that help me 
understand what this suggestion actually should look like in practice.
In case that sounds like unfriendly resistance (or even friendly resistance) 
please understand it isn't:  I'm always in favor of adding text that improves 
clarity and/or improves pedagogy.  In this case, I think I have a fuzzy 
understanding of the basic desire, but I'm not seeing how to turn that into 
words.  I don't see how the Intro on its own, or the Model introduction 
paragraph on its own, or the Operation section on its own fail to satisfy the 
goal.
And no, I'm not seeking to debate or defend them.  I'm looking for something 
concrete to help me understand what needs adding.  (In a feeble attempt to try 
to be more helpful in asking for help I'll say that I'm not worried about 
careful wording; anything roughly along the lines desired would be fine.  we 
can word-smith it later.)

> And this is what I was getting at when I said that I'm concerned that the
> labelling is insufficiently unique in format. Mind you, I'm not proposing a
> change here, merely expressing concern.
Here I am certain I *do* understand the concern.  And it's always a valid 
concern to raise about a syntax.
The problem is that we can't do much with it unless someone documents 
deficiencies in the current syntax, with respect to requirements that we agree 
need to be satisfied.  While the current syntax has some evolution -- ie, 
learning -- that produced it, I don't think any of us is religious about this 
sort of detail, other than wanting changes to have a clear motivation, clear 
benefit, and the usual consensus.
Really.  If someone wants the current syntax changed, please do propose it, 
explaining why it is needed.
d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net