On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:43:27PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
They give me the impression as a reader that a lot of context is being
hidden from me and that the implications of the draft are being
carefully obscured so that I as a reviewer not involved in the process
won't know what is going on. I suspect the actual cause has more to do
with preventing arguments about goals when mechanisms can be agreed to
or writing minimal drafts.
The above makes me pretty uncomfortable as a reader: you make what
sound like pretty damning accusations without the slightest argument
from any text. If you don't understand some passage, say so. If you
think you disagree with a possible entailment of a draft, say so. As
near as I can tell, you're saying you don't understand the
implications of a draft, so you think they're bad drafts. It could
just be that your expertise is not the relevant one for these drafts,
and therefore you don't have the necessary context to understand the
implications of something plain to those who do have that context.
But since you don't even say what things you don't find clear, it's
pretty hard to know.
Best regards,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(_at_)shinkuro(_dot_)com
Shinkuro, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf