Re: Negotiation in draft 01

In message <9508090308.AA04559@sulphur.osf.org>, Rich Salz writes:
in reply to Roy Fielding:

> >They were not.  I very rarely design things on the mailing list, preferring
> >instead to work with small groups on particular problems and then presenting
> >the result in the form of a draft.  We spent a great deal of time trying
> >to find the best way to cache responses given the possible presence of
> >content variants.  Not all of the conclusions made it into the draft, but
> >the parsing requirements did.
> 
> This attitude is offensive.  We are not the huddled tribes waiting for
> stone tablets to come down from above.  The members of this mailing list
> are those people who expect to be involved in the definition of the HTTP
> protocol.

And you are. There's a draft, if you want something changed, get it changed
by discussing it in the group.

> At least now I understand why a 500-line detailed commentary on
> v10-spec that I sent to this list at the end of May got no reaction.

I don't, and it's a separate issue.

> This is not the way the IETF works.  At the very least, an apology is
> called for.  More likely, a major procedure reset probably needs to be done
> by the Area Director (e.g., replace the current editor).
> 	/r$

I don't think an apology is called for, neither is your aggresive reaction.

Personally I'm glad Roy has provided a solid basis to discuss, rather than
a lot of talking happening without result (that's what www-talk is for,
right? Joke! Joke, sorry... :-)

I too would like to (have) see(n) a faster turnaround time on the draft,
but that's always easy when you're not the one doing the work :-)

Enough soapbox as far as I'm concerned, now where did I put that draft...

-- Martijn
__________
Internet: m.koster@nexor.co.uk
X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
WWW: http://web.nexor.co.uk/mak/mak.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 August 1995 01:01:44 UTC