Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

[Randall Gellens <randy at qualcomm.com>]

At 7:16 PM -0500 5/4/09, James Winterbottom wrote:

>  Under the same reasoning Randy, since there was never consensus in the
>  WG to add it,

There may not have been a formal consensus call, but there was 
significant discussion on the list, and my impression was that we had 
general agreement to add it.

>   it should never have been added, and since no real
>  justification for its inclusion has been provided,

There has been much justification with detailed reasoning for adding it.

>   we should revert back
>  to the previous version of the document and proceed to last call the
>  document.

It was added as a compromise based on the discussion in SFO and on 
the list subsequently.  It's a compromise, like much of the text we 
publish.


>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
>  Of Randall Gellens
>  Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2009 8:26 AM
>  To: Spencer Dawkins; Ted Hardie; Dawson, Martin; Edge,Stephen;
>  BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; ecrit at ietf.org; RandallGellens
>  Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>
>  At 5:00 PM -0500 5/4/09, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> > >   The statement added in -09 is a compromise; even the most fervent
> > >  argument against it comes down to "it isn't needed".  Given the
> > >  choice between a compromise statement that clearly does no harm,
> > >  and, depending on one's viewpoint is either vitally needed or
> > >  redundant, it seem clear that we should progress the document with
> > >  the text in it.
> >
> >   I'm having a difficult time thinking of "clearly does no harm" as
> >  sufficient justification for including text in a document that's
> >  still tagged as a BCP...
>
>  I never said "clearly does no harm" is *sufficient* justification for
>  adding it, rather, it's justification for not removing it given the
>  arguments for it.  There are a number of people who have made
>  well-reasoned and detailed cases for why this text is needed; since
>  it is already a compromise that does no harm, the choice to leave it
>  in seems clear.
>
>  --
>  Randall Gellens
>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>  Procedures!  Of course, that's what you'd use with a *sophisticated*
>  machine like this.  Procedures.    --'Ceaser Smith' in _Hot_Millions_
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ecrit mailing list
>  Ecrit at ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>  contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. 
>  If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>  immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
>  this email is prohibited.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  [mf2]
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ecrit mailing list
>  Ecrit at ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I have made it a rule, whenever in my power, to avoid becoming the
draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public body.
             --Benjamin Franklin