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

> From: "Stuart Cheshire" <[email protected]>
> 
> 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?
> 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."

I stand by my comment then and later. The extra phrase was added at the request of the IESG. We could have pointed out to the person concerned that the very next example mentioned wireless networks and asked whether they thought their text was still necessary. For all I know this was done? We could have spent an extra week or two (or three or four) batting it around to get a better form of words, but in fact the meaning of the text in question is clear enough and is not wrong. It does not affect the protocol in any way - it is merely redundant in the opinion of some (myself included). In these circumstances I was happy to see it go through in the interests of closure - given that somebody else thought it important.

My frustration now is not with your argument over this text, it is with your timing - LL46 was discussed and you had as much opportunity to argue the point then as anyone else. The issue was closed and should not be reopened unless the text is incorrect or likely to cause erroneous implementations. This test definitely applies to some of the issues which you have recently raised and I have supported them.

Philip