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

[Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>]

I'm OK with Randy's text.

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:14 PM
To: Randy Presuhn; LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #61: Problem with MAY in 3.5 on Description errata(Apps #13)

(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