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.