Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-101 us-ascii-ref

On 15.03.2011 18:28, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On 03/15/2011 12:10 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 15.03.2011 17:07, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On 03/15/2011 11:41 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> On 15.03.2011 16:13, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> This leaves us with two strong and rather orthogonal objections. We
>>>>> then turned to look at what the practical implications would be if
>>>>> each
>>>>> were adopted. Despite not being a "definition", we found no statement
>>>>> to the effect that RFC 1345 is not useful for the purpose of an
>>>>> informative reference. We did find statements that referencing a
>>>>> for-pay spec would cause less people to actually make use of the
>>>>> reference.
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> So do you consider the reference to be non-normative? In that case, a
>>>> bug should be raised to mark it as such.
>>>
>>> The chairs will not interfere with any bugs that can be resolved
>>> amicably within the Working Group.
>>
>> So do you consider the reference to be non-normative?
>
> All I will say is that the Chairs believe that the Group has duly
> considered the legitimate concerns of dissenters as far as is possible
> and reasonable, and that the group SHOULD move on.
>
> If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest that you present new
> information as described by the decision, and accompany this information
> with a Change Proposal. I also encourage you to review the objections
> that were made to the previous proposal and to work with the individuals
> that made those objections.

Sam,

the chair decision seems to be based on the assumption that the 
reference isn't normative, and thus RFC 1345 is "good enough". I'm 
*just* trying to understand the decision, because understanding it 
properly is necessary to decide what to do next.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 17:40:06 UTC