Elwyn Davies <elwynd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bill Strahm wrote: >> Robert Elz wrote: >> >>> I cannot see why there's a debate going on here. If someone, anyone, >>> can read a spec, and, in good faith, point out a possible ambiguity >>> in the text, before the doc is finalised, and if fixing it to avoid >>> the problem is easy, what possible justification can there be for >>> not adding a few words to clarify things, and make sure that confusion >>> does not happen? >> >> My mother can't read internet drafts either. Should we change our >> language so that my mother can read and comprehend them. > > Authors should be expecting that their works will be read by people > who need to get the background right as well as those actually studying > every line, so it is best to use clear and unambiguous language if at > all possible... Over many years, I have noticed a characteristic group dynamic where folks put their effort into agreeing on words, without bothering to ever agree on what the words mean. This _often_ leads to seemingly irrational defense of the exact words which have been agreed upon. :^( I suggest that folks take note of this feature as we move in the direction of having documents shepharded by WGCs through the process leading to publication as an RFC: Folks who have been intimately involved in choosing exact words will often prefer to defend the words, rather than defend the meaning. This looks like a situation in which only a DISCUSS by an IESG member would be sufficient to get the wording clarified. :^( :^( -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf