I agree that there were no technical comments but the summary states 'no
comments'.
Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a proposal is made I
hear the complexity argument used against it. Everything we do is complex.
Computers are complex. Committee process usually increases complexity somewhat.
If an argument can always be used what is the discrimination power?
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:11 AM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Pekka Savola; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Document Action: 'Abstract Syntax Notation X
(ASN.X)' to Experimental RFC
I saw almost no technical comments on the documents. Most of
the last call comments I saw were on a side track about
copyright issues.
The one somewhat technical comment that I logged, from Tom
Yu, didn't result in any changes but was certainly
influential on me in agreeing to the documents being
reclassified from standards track to Experimental. This could
have been acknowledged in the writeup, I guess.
Brian
On 2007-03-13 14:04, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 13 March, 2007 07:47 +0200 Pekka Savola
<pekkas(_at_)netcore(_dot_)fi> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, The IESG wrote:
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-legg-xed-asd-07.txt
...
Working Group Summary
This document set was not produced by an IETF working
group, but by
an individual. IETF Last Call produced no comments, and
solicited
reviewers were basically positive.
This writeup was not updated or comments were not duly
processed. I
see 14 Last Call comments (retaining the subject
line) on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)list, as well as 12 comments under the
'Protest: Complexity running rampant' thread.
Agreed... I was about to send a similar note when I saw this one.
I would add that few of the 14 comments were really positive about
this specification. In addition, several of the comments on both
threads asked for specific clarification of the need to
introduce the
complexities inherent in an additional syntax for accomplishing the
underlying functionality. The document has not been modified to
reflect those concerns.
If the IESG is going to claim a silent majority in favor of
approving
this document, so be it. But to claim that there were no Last Call
comments and that those that were solicited were
positive is deeply problematic. It even leads one to wonder
whether the IESG has ignored critical comments in other
cases, but I
trust that has not occurred.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf