Bob, To me, this is a perfectly sensible discussion, and my analogy was perfectly reasonable. Joel suggested that refraining from making changes that might result in altering phraseology that was carefully arrived at was effectively prohibiting the technical editor from doing the editing job. I say that the editing job can be done - as it is being done now - within the bounds of this constraint. I think this makes a lot of sense. The Editor makes it very clear what his/her specific requirements and standards of acceptability are and these are certainly taken into account in the process of word-smithing key phraseology - in many cases if not necessarily all (especially by the time IESG approval occurs). At the same time, the people writing a specification would not normally like to feel that the Editor must be a party to word-smithing of this same key phraseology - except from the stand-point of readability and clarity within the context of the purpose of the document. The concern I see being expressed in the draft is that we want to ensure that the current practice of reasoned prudence in making editorial changes is continued. This is a perfectly valid concern. As for emotional charge in the term "nit-picking" - I see none. As anyone who knows me can assure you, I am the last one in the world who will throw stones in that glass house. Since the term derives from the practice of de-lousing, I can hardly imagine it to be necessarily a bad thing. Finally, ambiguity is sometimes precisely what has been negotiated into a specification and this should be legitimate if the effect of the ambiguity is irrelevant to the purpose of the document. An instance of this is an example, provided not to instruct but to illustrate functionality in the abstract. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@xxxxxxx] --> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:43 PM --> To: braden@xxxxxxx; Eric.Gray@xxxxxxxxxxx --> Cc: jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: RE: LC on draft-mankin-pub-req-08.txt --> --> --> *> --> *> "People should refrain from allowing their passion for precise --> *> terminology usage to prevent essential communication from --> *> ever taking place" --> *> --> --> That statement incorporates an assumption that is not true. --> I vaguely --> recall that you can prove anything starting from a false premise. --> --> Bob Braden --> --> *> - is a far cry from - --> *> --> *> "Nit-picking is prohibited." --> --> Your choice of the emotion-packed word "nit-picking" --> reveals that you and --> I cannot have a sensible discussion. Is a bug in a --> programs a nit? Is --> bad English grammar a nit? Is ambiguous prose or terminology a nit? --> --> Bob Braden --> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf