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

Patrik Fältström patrik at frobbit.se
Sat May 24 08:40:43 CEST 2008

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.


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

More information about the Idna-update mailing list