Re: Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution

On 2012-01-26 22:20, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> Julian Reschke<>, 2012-01-26 22:05 +0100:
>> On 2012-01-26 21:41, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
>>> OK, but I still don't see anywhere there the phrase "don't cite this
>>> without this disclaimer" you put into quotation marks.
>> I put it into quotes to indicate that this is what they say. Sorry for the
>> confusion. You know me well enough to know that if this was an actual
>> citation I would have added a URI :-)
> I see.
>> I think it's pretty clear that an ED or WD is not stable, but it's totally
>> not clear to me that this is supposed to automatically extend to whatever it
>> cites.
> In what way does that distinction actually matter to implementors of the spec?

In what way is that the only consideration that matters?

>> PS: I'd like to remind everybody that we wouldn't have this discussion if
>> the author had done a three-line edit a few months ago.
> Really? I can imagine that some people might see it as more a case of, we
> wouldn't be having that this discussion if there hadn't been a spec bug
> raised about it that the editor was obligated to spend time responding to
> and resolving.

So far all the editor has done is WONTFIX the bug with the rationale "I 
like it the way it is". That doesn't look like a lot time was wasted so far.

Fixing the bug means applying a change to two lines of source code; and 
the CP even contained a diff for that. Estimated amount of time for the 
change: 5 minutes.

Instead we now have many people wasting their time on what really is a 
minor change. Please put the blame on this on me alone; there's one 
party asking for a minor change, and another blocking it without a good 
reason, as far as I can tell.

Can we go back to work now and let the WG chairs decide how to proceed?


Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 21:35:26 UTC