--On 30. desember 2006 18:00 -0800 Michael Thomas <mat(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
With regard to textual nit-picking and evaluation of worthiness of
prose, I tend to agree with what I think you are saying. However, if a
document is too badly written to permit interoperable implementations
to be constructed without clarifying conversations among implementers,
authors, and/or the WG, then the document is a failure and needs
pushback. As with late surprises, somewhat more proactive effort on
the part of WGs could prevent many of the problems we see, but...
I was using "wordsmithing" rather broadly. My probably idiosyncratic
meaning
of "wordsmithing" here was "will this DISCUSS change the mechanics of the
protocol or not". If the answer is no, we're really just making the
document
more ready for publication IMO. Something that does bring that possibility
is obviously a lot more serious. It's been my admittedly limited
experience that
my version of "wordsmithing" is a lot more common, and the source of a lot
of delay to varying degrees of dubiousness.
One meaning of "wordsmithing" resulting from a DISCUSS that I think is an
entirely worthwhile activity is where the mechanics of the protocol, as
implemented by a WG participant, will not change one whit, but where the
implementation by a non-participant changes from "improbable" to
"possible", because it's clear what the words were intended to say.
Another example of "wordsmithing" that does not change the mechanics of the
protocol, but is nevertheless important, is the IANA considerations stuff -
while it does not change the protocol as such, it does change the
"meta-protocol" of extending the protocol later. That's important.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf