Point-by-point responses (was: Re: Protocol-00)

[Patrik Fältström]

See the IETF tools page for diff functions. Available for anyone  
between any document. Nothing that have to be produced explicitly.

And to help, I have already once sent the link to the diff tool to  
this wg mailing list. So, look in the email archives.

    Patrik

On 23 maj 2008, at 17.10, James Seng wrote:

> Could we produce a diff between this version and the last one to
> assert what changes have being made and therefore make it easier for
> the contributors like Mark who can then go thru to see which of his
> concerns has being address and which has not?
>
> -James Seng
>
> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org>  
> wrote:
>> At 12:17 AM -0400 5/23/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that note also discussed the fact that a point by
>>> point explanatory response to an omnibus set of comments is
>>> immensely time-consuming, especially when those comments
>>> intermix editorial comments, issues that the WG has not
>>> addressed yet and that are certain to be controversial (in this
>>> case, including reorganization requests), substantive but
>>> largely uncontroversial issues, and repetitions of issues the
>>> group had already resolved and even more so when many of the
>>> change suggestions do not include an explanation of why you
>>> believe they should be made (essentially the mirror image of
>>> what you are asking me to provide).  Such point by point
>>> responses are rarely provided in the IETF, especially at early
>>> stages of work on a document in a WG, partially because it could
>>> be an easy avenue to using extensive comments as a denial of
>>> service attack on the group.
>>
>> And yet that is precisely the point we are at now. We are supposed to
>> determine which topics are germane for the WG. I tried to nudge  
>> this along
>> with an informal list of topics, but that discussion was not picked  
>> up on by
>> the document authors.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the new protocol document, the  
>> preferences that
>> people in the WG stated were ignored. Maybe that was due to the  
>> fact that it
>> was an informal poll; maybe it was due to the fact that not enough  
>> people
>> responded (such none of the design team); maybe it was due to the  
>> design
>> team wanting to have WG-branded documents before asking again. We  
>> don't
>> know. Better, more concise communication would help the WG know  
>> where we are
>> in the process.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update