ietf-nntp Draft summary of IETF 48 meeting

[ned.freed at INNOSOFT.COM]

Clive Feather writes:

> 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.

Nor would I be. But that's not what I said needed to be done.

> > 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.

Please reread what I said more carefully -- I was simply giving an example. My
point was only that such questions need to be a separate thread, so we don't
spend another two years misinterpreting people's intentions and getting
nowhere.

				Ned