Case 2: You have asserted that a protocol feature being
reviewed in a WG does not work. Have you implemented
and tested it and, if not, on what basis do you make
that assertion?
I suggest that, if the second question is considered
inappropriate and prohibited, we are in big trouble. I hope
there is general agreement on that subject. But I'm having
trouble understanding why the two questions are different
The second question is not appropriate *as the first response*.
If someone should asset that a protocol feature won't work, they
should say why -- they should give a technical assessment that backs
their assertion. If they don't, requesting *that* should be our first
response.
There's a point in the conversation when, yes, it is absolutely
appropriate to ask what background they have and what testing they've
actually done that supports their argument. But someone who has never
written a line of code can still find a technical flaw, and it's the
technical argument that we should consider first.
Barry