On 3/19/06, Paul Hoffman <phoffman(_at_)imc(_dot_)org> wrote:
There is a long-standing effort outside the WG that includes
conformance tests. Their first inclusion of conformance tests for the
current draft had many errors, as Rob pointed out.
The errors were extensive to indicate that either the editor of the
draft hasn't read the draft, or the tests were put there
intentionally. I'm not sure which is worse.
He has not tried to change the
document based on his bogus tests, and would certainly be shot down
(without Rob's vitrol) if he did.
Actually, in the past, the editors have included several normative
requirements with consulting the WG, and then insisted they were
grounds for "discussion". See a pattern here?
It seems that in this instance, a specific discussion of where the
line is drawn would be more useful than being so formal about this.
The line is drawn when the attacks become personal.
...
imputing absurd motives on them...
"Wouldn't it be easier if we started with some set of requirements/use
cases instead of inventing them on-the-fly to club alternative
proposals?"
<http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg03355.html>
There's your problem, and there's proof that I'm not the only one that
feels this way.
--
Robert Sayre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf