On 11 feb 2008, at 22:11, Adrian Farrel wrote: > I think what it points out is that, those of us who do not know > enough about > grammar, should not presume to suggest that fixes to grammar are > unimportant. Bar-room gramarians are, perhaps, as unhelpful in the > IETF as > bar-room lawyers, and the reason why we stoop to employ > professionals is > because we are not qualified That's nonsense. You don't need a degree to use language. If a grammar rule is so complex that the group of people who created things like the "simple" network management protocol can't figure it out, it would be a mistake to make use of semantics that depend on that rule. It may be useful to employ people who had training in spotting these issues, especially as not all RFC authors are native English speakers, but there is a reason the name of the author is put above an RFC, and not the name of the (copy) editor. I.e., it's always the author's fault. > the American usage that we are required to > turn out our RFCs in. Unless this is kept a secret so only those of us who are RFC authors know of it, this is not a requirement. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf