Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL57] Straightforward editorial fixes

> >several appear to be pedantic filibusters!
> 
> These are not filibusters, pedantic or otherwise.

I apologise for any offence but having got the document through last call and IESG approval and having thought that it had been "shipped" I found it rather frustrating to be called back to debate the merits of calling a section "Unintentional Autoimmune Response" rather than "Unintentional Autoimmunity".

> The filibuster here, if any, is the attitude, "There's nothing wrong with 
> this edit and it would improve the document, but I'm going to oppose it 
> anyway."

It is quite correct to point out typographic mistakes such as the "169.254.255" example you spotted. However, it is insulting to the group on this list who have patiently debated through this document over months and months and after the process is closed to attempt to reopen debate over whether a different way to express something is "better" than the way which has been agreed. There was a time for this and many issues were debated to the satisfaction of all - that time has gone.

There will always be scope in a document of this complexity to improve readability or clarity - at least for some readers - but the test at this point should not be "does this make it clearer?" but "is the existing text wrong, imprecise or sufficiently confusing that a person with reasonable experience of implementing protocols from specifications will get it wrong". In my experience the current draft is more clear and readable than a number of protocol specs I have had to follow.

Philip