ietf-nntp Draft summary of IETF 48 meeting

[ned.freed at INNOSOFT.COM]

> In which case Charles should suggest the alternative text:

>     PAT

>     This command returns a random string.

> as being a more accurate description of the situation.

> I'm afraid I agree with him here; the rule sounds like an attempt to squash
> debate by bureaucracy. It is one thing to ban statements like "someone
> should reword PAT to do X" without proposed text; I can live with that. It
> is another to forbid questions entirely.

Folks, we're trying to reach closure here. This work has been dragging on for
far too long.

The alternative to being very restrictive on discussions of this document is to
declare failure and shut down the WG with no new specification having been
produced. Do you really want that?

Now, having said that, a *separate* discussion of, say, the future of PAT
in NNTP would be fine as long as it is identified as not a discussion of
this document.

				Ned