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

James Seng james at seng.sg
Fri May 23 17:10:59 CEST 2008

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

More information about the Idna-update mailing list