John, et al,
John C Klensin wrote:
I've been waiting to respond to your draft until there was more
discussion on the list but, apparently, either the draft or
other circumstances killed that discussion.
I, too, waited to comment on it and see what the reception was. However I
produced the usual set of html/pdf formats and rfcdiff versions that I'm
producing these days. This set is at:
<http://bbiw.net/recent.html#rfcmedia>
and have no idea why I didn't post the information, and do apologize for failing
to distribute the link.
Given that there had been some diligent group conversation which prompted my
draft, it was a bit of a surprise to see the topic simply dropped. In fact my
draft was prompted by suggestions by others to expand the scope of your draft a bit.
I found the posting of this draft very disappointing. I believe
we make progress in the IETF (and elsewhere) by building
explicitly on each other's work and by open discussion of
changes.
Well, I have the same model of making progress.
So the disparity, in this case, is with the tactics I chose for seeking
incremental change, rather than in my seeking to promote a "competing" drafts.
My draft is -- and states in the Abstract and the Introduction that it is -- a
direct mutation of yours, with as few changes as I could get away with.
While yes, my document is separate from yours, I intended it as a basis for
discussion, rather than intending to press for "my" draft to "replace" yours.
(FWIW, I also intentionally crippled mine by leaving out required portions.)
One view is that any time someone posts a suggestion for change, they have
created "competition" about what will finally be published. We don't tend to
think of it that way, but it really what any normal revision process entails.
While I do understand the tendency to think that putting forward an entire draft
automatically makes it "competing", this was intended as a vehicle for prompting
discussion about an integrated set of changes, to alter the document's scope and
tone. The usual form of disjoint suggested changes fails to communicate an
integrated reading of the results. For changes in direction or scope, this can
be problematic. (And, besides, I think rfcdiff does quite a good job of
highlighting the pieces of change; again I apologize for failing to send a point
to it.)
But your draft doesn't do that: not only is the original model
(in draft-rfc-image-files-00.txt) preserved, but you used almost
Actually, the model is changed significantly. That it could be accomplished
with relatively few changes was serendipitous.
Few, but not small. The entire "Goals" section, for example, changes things
quite a bit.
(1) You have added a few goals. Had you chosen to raise
Eleven. Eleven goals.
(2) You have eliminated some, perhaps all, of the
details. Without those details, the proposal is reduced
My reading is that I added details.
Finally and FWIW, by stripping the acknowledgments from the
original document and not indicating the source for the text you
used, it appears that you have violated the IPR requirements for
I-D postings.
Abstract:
"This proposal is based on
draft-rfc-image-files-00, by Braden and Klensin, and revises it as
little as possible, while expanding the goals of the effort."
Introduction:
" This proposal is based on draft-rfc-image-files-00, by Braden and
Klensin, and revises it as little as possible. As an expedient, the
References section has been omitted from this initial version of the
draft."
By the way, have I apologized for failing to post the diffs?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf