On 3/19/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > is there any chance you could sit down and try to work this out? No, the WG is out of control. That's easy to observe, no matter where one places the blame. > > If he had explicitly explained that there were conformance tests that > were not motivated by the document in his messages, they would have > been more useful. If he had given examples of specific tests that > were incorrect, it would have been even more useful. There were 10 or 20 tests in the suite, and I didn't bother to go through each of them and explain. However, I did show that the possible errors in the test suite were mostly bogus. http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg04682.html I was then told that there would have to be a "discussion", and that the test suite consituted an implementation that showed evidence of interop problem. I've always thought that WG discussions should take the form "My application has problem X, and I want to to fix it with solution Y." In fact, atompub has a rather formal process in place that requires WG members do exactly that. > > Remember suspensions are a tool to improve efficiency of > working groups, not punishments to punish people for bad behavior. If efficiency is the concern, I'm not the person to ban. The WG has steamrolled my objections twice, only to adopt my individual draft a few months later (though they don't admit that). It looks like they're headed for a third time. That should only take three or four months, maybe five or six, if it's decided that another individual is threatening in some way. -- Robert Sayre _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf