ietf-nntp Draft summary of IETF 48 meeting

[Clive D.W. Feather]

ned.freed at innosoft.com said:
> Folks, we're trying to reach closure here. This work has been dragging on for
> far too long.

Agreed. Though we might disagree on the reasons.

> 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?

No, but that is a false dichotomy.

It is no good saying "no discussion without new wording" when people *DON'T
UNDERSTAND* the present wording. There are places - I've posted about one
today - where the wording could mean one of three or four things. If
someone who knows the history and culture will tell me which, I'll happily
provide new words. BUT I CAN'T DO IT UNTIL THEN - there's just too many
possibilities to consider.

I'm happy to ban vague "someone should change the wording to do X" - you'll
notice I try to give draft words. I'm happy to ban vague discussion of the
future. I'm not happy to ban questions.

> 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.

Charles doeesn't want to talk about the future of PAT. He wants to have a
specification that makes sense. So do I. So, I hope, do you. But he can't
criticise specific wording and propose changes until he understands the
intent.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather  | Work:  <clive at demon.net>   | Tel:  +44 20 8371 1138
Internet Expert     | Home:  <clive at davros.org>  | Fax:  +44 20 8371 1037
Demon Internet      | WWW: http://www.davros.org | DFax: +44 20 8371 4037
Thus plc            |                            | Mobile: +44 7973 377646