On 3/19/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is a long-standing effort outside the WG that includes > conformance tests. Their first inclusion of conformance tests for the > current draft had many errors, as Rob pointed out.
The errors were extensive to indicate that either the editor of the draft hasn't read the draft, or the tests were put there intentionally. I'm not sure which is worse. > He has not tried to change the > document based on his bogus tests, and would certainly be shot down > (without Rob's vitrol) if he did. Actually, in the past, the editors have included several normative requirements with consulting the WG, and then insisted they were grounds for "discussion". See a pattern here? > >It seems that in this instance, a specific discussion of where the > >line is drawn would be more useful than being so formal about this. > > The line is drawn when the attacks become personal. ... > imputing absurd motives on them... "Wouldn't it be easier if we started with some set of requirements/use cases instead of inventing them on-the-fly to club alternative proposals?" <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg03355.html> There's your problem, and there's proof that I'm not the only one that feels this way. -- Robert Sayre _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
