Whys, wherefores, examples (Re: Certificate status checks vs validity period; self-signed certs (Re: Current state of editor's draft / IdentitySignal))

> > It's getting harder and harder for me to hold on to why this is
> > supposed to be helpful with trust decisions. It seems a gap in
> > the standard of standards writing that there's not an easy way to
> > provide annotations or references to back up statements like
> > this. It would certainly cut down on the overhead of dealing with
> > comments (where you can provide references to examples or group
> > decision making inline, and track them as the draft goes along). 
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at.

What I'm getting at is related to the new agenda item for today; what to 
do about the extra text (and discussions) we have that motivate and 
explain the current status of all our conformance language. 

As chair, I'm worried about the "overhead" of replying to comments. We 
seem to barely have a grip on those aspects right now. There are at least 
two ways to address that. One is to get more participants to help out more 
with that, when comments come in for the rec track document. Another, and 
the one I'd like to explore, is to make it easier for reviewers to "see" 
our rationale, and for us to reference it in replies to comments. Much 
like US Supreme Court decisions, for many, many aspects of our documents, 
we each "know" the motivating factors. Some are easily found (by active 
and attentive WG participants) in the full text versions of proposals. 
Others are in email or meeting discussions. There should be a way to "link 
to" a subset of those from any comment that goes out for review. That way, 
areas that seem highly likely to draw comments can come "pre loaded" with 
information that should help with "obvious" reactions. This can make the 
reviews more informed, and make it easier to reply to reviews. It seems 
like such an integral part of the standards process, that I'm surprised 
there's no normal process or tools to provide references, footnotes, 
annotations (was Annotea used for this?).