Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 09:54:46AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> I've promoted.  But the only question that ever matters is whether
> community/wg support developed enough to direct changes.
> 
> Hence my question.

And I've said I give up.  I still think the approach in the I-D is
wrong, and I don't think you've ever actually answered my concerns
about it, which are all based in trying to understand how the
additional dimension helps anyone make a decision.  But I give up, and
I said I won't mention it again.  I'm not sure what else you would
like from me.

> > I hereby withdraw that remark.
> 
> Except that you aren't withdrawing it

I just did, right there where you quoted me.

> These is a long list of messages that I posted to you and/or Alissa on
> the list, during the previous rounds of discussion about your concerns,
> last Summer and last Fall, attempting to get followup on your concerns,
> by raising counter-concerns and/or seeking details.

My interpretation of your messages was that you were simply rejecting
the overall premise from which we were starting, and insisting that
somehow we offer patches to the I-D.  I think we have in fact offered
text, and I offered text in the message that I sent upthread.  I made
some concrete suggestions. The WG or its editors may take them or
leave them.

> On 1/30/2017 8:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> >Requiring due diligence about specific issues is quite common when
> >writing requirements and procedures.  So calling it absurd is...
> >absurd. As for possibly not matching the meaning of Mandatory in the
> >document: In some cases getting the necessary information is
> >problematic.  So we don't go there.  Again, not absurd.
> 
> 
> It's one thing to respond to this with some thoughtful basis for
> disagreement.  Instead your above comments implies that you didn't even
> see it.

Except that I actually _quoted_ that passage and responded to it in
another message, where I pointed out that I couldn't even understand
what mandatory could possibly mean in the way you are using it.  As I
think you might be aware, since that message is another one to which
you have replied.

Anyway, I am past the point at which I think I am able to make any
contribution to this text given the apparent impasse I have every
single time I attempt to communicate with you about it.  I am not
going to be on the IAOC starting in March, so I won't actually have to
struggle with the implementation of this draft; and apparently I am
the only one who has my worries about that implementation.  So my
worries won't matter, and future IAOCs will presumably have something
to work with.  I've offered such remarks as I can make.  I regret that
they have not been useful to you.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]