Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping, Tracerou

Robert Elz wrote:
> 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.
My mother can't read internet drafts either.  Should we change our 
language so that my mother can read and comprehend them.
It is assumed that there is a baseline knowledge when we write drafts... 
If you don't know how MIBs work in general - there are a LOT of problems 
that you have to sort out before you can provide technical feedback to 
the community.  Someone who is practiced in the art of 
reading/writting/implementing MIBs isn't going to have a problem with 
strictly monotonically increasing Indexes - knowing what that means, and 
how to implement it and test the implementation for correctness.
Somone who has been watching a rant on the list recently invovling the 
work monotonically increasing, MIGHT see the word and get confused.  I 
am not to worried about that - the document really isn't for their eyes 
anyway (I'm not about to comment on various security drafts either - 
should they be simplified so I can understand them, I hope I am expected 
to put in the work so that I understand them instead)

> 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).
Bill

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf