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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Dave:

> 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.

Your quote dropped a lot of context.  I said:

If there is a technical problem, let’s identify it and fix it.  If there is a lack of clarity, let’s fix that too.  However, WG Last Call is not the time to revisit each decision that brought the WG to this point.

All:

I have asked the the next version of all three documents to be posted.  I believe that will resolve the vast majority of the little things, and then we can better focus on any unresolved technical problems and the places where clarifications are needed.

Russ