Mapping (was: Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic)

[Vint Cerf]

i am willing to work with you to argue your "proposed" option to  
achieve consensus on the text.

vint

On Aug 22, 2008, at 8:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

>
>
> --On Friday, 22 August, 2008 20:48 -0400 Vint Cerf
> <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps an alternative tactic is possible. If there is
>> normative information in rationale, let's put it into the
>> appropriate other document (protocol, bidi, tables) and KEEP
>> it in the rationale document. Let's say up front that
>> rationale is NOT normative but intended to help understanding
>> of the normative documents.
>
> That is more or less what I intended by the "duplicate text in
> both documents" comment.   The problem I see with it at this
> stage is that it will be very hard to keep the duplicate copies
> consistent if we change one or the other.  And that is precisely
> the reason I proposed a "get things finished and right with this
> set of documents, get them published at Proposed, and _then_
> rearrange things, duplicating then-stable text as needed.
>
> The most difficult normative material that is now in Rationale
> is the set of definitions and that material is definitely not
> stable (or at least it is still controversial).
>
> If the WG wants to try the "duplicate now" plan, I'm willing to
> try to do so, but it will require _very_ careful review to
> ensure that things stay consistent as we make other changes.
>
>     john
>