Stephen,
...
I assert we have a sufficient definition for this BCP and do
not here need more. Can you say what ambiguity in interpretation
would be caused by the current definition? I don't think any of
us interested in aimless perfection, but if there are ambiguities
that'd have an impact, then those would be very interesting.
If there are no such ambiguities, then we should be done.
I disagree.
I guess we disagree:-)
yep. my later message provided text to illustrate what I
think is a reasonable way to approach this discussion.
Otherwise, we will look silly to many readers.
Well, as you know, I don't much mind looking silly
myself:-) But I don't think I've not seen anyone
(else?) say the current text looks silly.
I also don't mind if you look silly; I mind if the IETF looks silly :-).
We have not had feedback from the external audience to which this is
directed.
...I don't disagree with quite a bit of your text btw, though there
are definitely bits where we do disagree. I'll watch for responses to
your other mail though.
I'll await your responses.
this. Avoiding examples creates ambiguity in a context where terms are not
crisply defined. We seem to be in that context.
I've still not seen a good example of such an ambiguity. If
there are some then that really would be interesting.
The extended discussion over what is and is not PM, vs. legitimate
monitoring,
is indicative of what I see as evidence of ambiguity.
Steve