On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:43:27PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > They give me the impression as a reader that a lot of context is being > hidden from me and that the implications of the draft are being > carefully obscured so that I as a reviewer not involved in the process > won't know what is going on. I suspect the actual cause has more to do > with preventing arguments about goals when mechanisms can be agreed to > or writing minimal drafts. The above makes me pretty uncomfortable as a reader: you make what sound like pretty damning accusations without the slightest argument from any text. If you don't understand some passage, say so. If you think you disagree with a possible entailment of a draft, say so. As near as I can tell, you're saying you don't understand the implications of a draft, so you think they're bad drafts. It could just be that your expertise is not the relevant one for these drafts, and therefore you don't have the necessary context to understand the implications of something plain to those who do have that context. But since you don't even say what things you don't find clear, it's pretty hard to know. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf