I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone,
can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity in
the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid the problem
is easy, what possible justification can there be for not adding a few
words to clarify things, and make sure that confusion does not happen?
Whenever someone points out a problem like this, the response should be
something like "OK, if we write it like ... does that make it clear?" or
perhaps "What would you suggest as clearer wording?" but never "It is
clear enough as it is" as the latter is already demonstrated to be false.
Certainly it is possible to explain the wording on the list, and convince
the objector that very careful understanding of the context makes the
intent clear - but that does nothing for the next person who comes along
and makes the same interpretation "mistake" (perhaps without even
realising the possibility for ambiguity, but simply interpreting the text
a different way).
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf