> What is disingenuous is reviewing a document to death, requiring > consensus on people's expressed concerns aside from the hyperbole, i think this is what we're supposed to be doing > then claiming, “oh no, we're not stopping publication”. puhleeze. there seems to be some useful disagreemet here; and it would help if we focused on it and tried to work it through until we can get consensus. < stating what might be obvious > as i read it, a fair number of folk (i among them) think that a number of practices described neutrally in the document should be flagged as negative. the reason this is an important distinction is that if and when we get downstream to writing documents more in the solution space, the behaviors marked as negtive do not need to be spported. e.g. some see encryption preventing http header insertion as a feature, not a bug. and it is ok to have this discussion. randy