Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)

[Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>]

+1

The intent of the MAY, which is omitted in Randy's text, is covered
in section 3.4 point 3.

    /kent k


Den 2009-06-11 21.13, skrev "Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon.com>:

> (editor hat OFF)
> 
> I prefer Randy's text to that in the draft. Any objection to putting it in
> place and then submitting the results??
> 
> Addison
> 
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
> 
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:04 PM
>> To: LTRU Working Group
>> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on
>> Description errata(Apps #13)
>> 
>> Hi -
>> 
>> As a technical contributor...
>> 
>>> From: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
>>> To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
>>> Cc: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:36 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on
>> Description errata(Apps #13)
>>> 
>>> [co-chair hat on]
>>> 
>>> Hello Randy,
>>> 
>>> (I would personally have been fine with keeping the text as is,
>> and you
>>> probably overlooked that part of my message, but) I have already
>>> declared that we have consensus that we should improve the
>> wording
>>> (without changing the substance), because we think that the
>> comment was
>>> based (to some extent) on misunderstanding.
>>> 
>>> If you think that I judged that consensus wrongly, please say so,
>> so
>>> that we can reopen discussion on that part.
>> 
>> No, there seem to be plenty of people who want to spend time fine-
>> tuning
>> the wording, so I think you called the consensus correctly.
>> 
>>> If you think that moving issue resolution forward by declaring
>> consensus
>>> on some part of an issue and then continue to resolve the
>> remaining
>>> parts of the issue is procedurally inappropriate, please say so.
>> 
>> No, although I find it quite a stretch  to read this
>> "misunderstanding"
>> into the reviewer's comment, which read:
>> 
>> | Reason: use of MAY is not an appropriate use of RFC 2119, as it
>> is
>> | trying to forecast the future and doesn't specify a protocol
>> option.
>> 
>>> Otherwise, please help us concentrate on the issues (and
>> subissues)
>>> currently being discussed, so that we can move forward as quickly
>> as
>>> possible.
>> ...
>> 
>> Of course.  The substance of my comment is that I find the recently
>> word-smithed text no better than the original.  If we must change
>> it,
>> I'd prefer something like this, which would also (incidentally)
>> address
>> the reviewer's comment:
>> 
>>      The 'Description' field is not guaranteed to be stable.
>>      Corrections and clarifications of intent are examples of
>>      possible changes.  However, attempts to provide translations
>>      or transcriptions of entries (which by definition provide no
>>      new information) are unlikely to be approved.
>> 
>> I think the existing statement "as changes of this nature have an
>> impact on the provisions in Section 3.4" is simply incorrect, and
>> *if*
>> we're going to open up this paragraph, that text should be stricken.
>> 
>> Randy
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ltru mailing list
>> Ltru at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> _______________________________________________
Ltru mailing
> list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru