On 2014-03-08 12:44 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:11 PM, David Wainberg wrote: > >> Matthias, >> >> What I don't understand about this is why, if Roy can unilaterally >> add the T without group discussion or consensus, Jack's proposal is >> being rejected by the chairs out of hand? > > I changed the duo TSV of "1" or "3" to a "T" as part of the directive to > remove indicators of compliance from the protocol. Remove, not add. And since we're on the topic, why and when was the "disregard" signal dropped? > That has had plenty > of discussion, both prior to the change and after I described the change. > It even provoked a related CfO. > Irrelevant. > This is hardly an opportunity to criticize the chairs -- Matthias was > just asking questions in order to elicit some clue as to why the suggested > change might be needed. I'm not criticizing the chairs. I'm asking why Jack's proposal is not being added to the TPE. > > I am the one who rejected the addition of "R" (or at least the suggestion > that it is an editorial change). The change to "T" wasn't an editorial > change either -- it was a proposal by an editor to the WG after discussion > amongst the editorial group (including chairs). That's why it was > described in the message that Jack quoted. > > In any case, this whole discussion seems to be based on a failure to > understand what the "T" TSV means and how it would be used by servers. I think I understand what it means, but maybe not. Please educate me.
Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 15:36:05 UTC