Re: [stir] Setting Direction for the STIR WG Last Call

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Russ, et al,

On 8/17/2016 1:52 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> However, WG Last Call is not the time to revisit each decision that
> brought the WG to this point.

That depends on the nature of the concerns being raised, and it always 
has.  The distinction that has always been made is between engineering 
aesthetics versus basic flaws.

We don't get to reopen an issue if it's really just a matter of 
preference -- I think semicolons are /so/ much better than forward 
slashes, we really do have to change the syntax.  Wrong.

But if someone happens to assess a serious technical flaw -- of the type 
that includes language like "it won't work" -- it doesn't (and 
shouldn't) matter when they notice it.

How the question of the flaw is resolved might matter, but that's a 
separate and later issue.


> If you are the author of a review that raises a large technical
> problem, I ask you to provide a concise description of the problem in
> a message of its own.  I am trying to separate the discussion of any
> such problems from the resolution of other document comments.

Speaking of basic flaws, there's a big one with that request.  I've put 
in an enormous amount of effort formulating comments carefully.

Twice.

You are now requiring me to do even more, for that work to /maybe/ get 
consideration.

That serves as an additional barrier to participation for me.  Even 
without the considerable pattern of abuses, that kind of barrier is 
artificial and exclusionary, in spite of how reasonable it seems.

And there is nothing preventing that extra effort to be done instead by 
the folk tasked with editing the documents. Or anyone else who is 
participating.

I've offered quite a bit of summary text, along with the detailed text. 
So anyone actually wishing to engage in serious discussion can easily 
initiate an email thread for it.

I'm going to post one or two, nonetheless, to test the waters.  But so 
far there appears to be little (no?) significant engagement from the 
general working group to consider the basic issues I've raised.

I'll respond to substantive comments -- and already have been -- but 
absent a change in participant engagement I won't be investing even more 
speculative energy on this.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net