> Case 2: You have asserted that a protocol feature being > reviewed in a WG does not work. Have you implemented > and tested it and, if not, on what basis do you make > that assertion? > > I suggest that, if the second question is considered > inappropriate and prohibited, we are in big trouble. I hope > there is general agreement on that subject. But I'm having > trouble understanding why the two questions are different The second question is not appropriate *as the first response*. If someone should asset that a protocol feature won't work, they should say why -- they should give a technical assessment that backs their assertion. If they don't, requesting *that* should be our first response. There's a point in the conversation when, yes, it is absolutely appropriate to ask what background they have and what testing they've actually done that supports their argument. But someone who has never written a line of code can still find a technical flaw, and it's the technical argument that we should consider first. Barry