Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL63] Text could be more specific

>If you are correct that it is fiction then I agree that this assertion 
>could be removed. However, why wasn't it weeded out at draft 2 or 3?

It was never in the early drafts.

It seems to have appeared in draft-11, in January this year.

>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.

Please remember that I've been doing as long as anyone.

I did the Mac OS 8.5 implementation, back in 1998, and I co-chaired the 
first NITS bof in 1999.

If you're tired of this, think how I feel.

At the end of the day, this is something I've been working on for six 
years now. That's a long time for a document that can basically be summed 
up as, "Pick an address and ARP to see if someone else is already using 
it."

What I'd like to avoid is a Bay-of-Pigs type situation where someone 
points to a sentence or paragraph in the document and says, "What does 
that mean?" and none of us knows the answer.

LL46 is a good example.

The WG chair announced, "1 week to discuss [LL46]".

Philip Nye wrote:

>Personally, I don't think any of these changes are necessary - this 
>clearly appears in an "examples include" section and the next line 
>mentions wireless networking.

Daniel Senie wrote:

>In general I agree with you.

Final resolution: "Action: Accept this change."

Huh?

Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org