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

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 10:51:55 -0700

>several appear to be pedantic filibusters!

These are not filibusters, pedantic or otherwise.

The authors of the document are entitled -- required even -- to exercise 
sound judgment about typographical issues in the document. Questions of 
spelling errors, simple grammatical errors, etc., trivial mistakes (e.g. 
"169.254.255" where it should have said "169.254.255.255") can and should 
be fixed without a lot of protracted debate.

In the interest of transparency Erik Guttman chose to list even all these 
minor changes for the benefit of the working group.

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."

If we want this process to conclude, we need to sincerely work towards 
agreement. If we seek every opportunity for disagreement, the process 
could continue indefinitely.

Lets please try to find agreement here. If you find factual or technical 
errors in the proposed edits then by all means point them out, otherwise, 
lets just agree and publish the document.

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

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 03:23:41 +0700

Date:        Fri, 7 May 2004 10:51:55 -0700
    From:        Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | If we want this process to conclude, we need to sincerely work towards 
  | agreement. If we seek every opportunity for disagreement, the process 
  | could continue indefinitely.

Somehow, you seem to have missed the process steps where we already
had agreement, including a successful IETF last call.   It was *done*.

I don't mind fixing the bad grammar, and obvious typos, but would have
hoped the RFC Editor would have found & corrected most of those anyway.
More than that is just too late now.

kre

---

From: "Philip Nye" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 21:33:28 -0000

> 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".

> this edit and it would improve the document, but I'm going to oppose it 

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