Elwyn Davies <elwynd(_at_)dial(_dot_)pipex(_dot_)com> wrote:
Bill Strahm wrote:
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?
My mother can't read internet drafts either. Should we change our
language so that my mother can read and comprehend them.
Authors should be expecting that their works will be read by people
who need to get the background right as well as those actually studying
every line, so it is best to use clear and unambiguous language if at
all possible...
Over many years, I have noticed a characteristic group dynamic where
folks put their effort into agreeing on words, without bothering to ever
agree on what the words mean.
This _often_ leads to seemingly irrational defense of the exact words
which have been agreed upon. :^(
I suggest that folks take note of this feature as we move in the
direction of having documents shepharded by WGCs through the process
leading to publication as an RFC: Folks who have been intimately
involved in choosing exact words will often prefer to defend the words,
rather than defend the meaning.
This looks like a situation in which only a DISCUSS by an IESG
member would be sufficient to get the wording clarified.
:^( :^(
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf