Hi James,
For me it's a matter of the fact that the spec has gone through 6
revisions and two design overhauls since it was first pitched. It's
been out there for quite a while. At some point, the design discussions
need to end and it needs to stablize so that folks can do something real
with it. If, during that process, some folks get annoyed, so be it,
that's the nature of the game.
Well I find you a bit aggressive here I haven't said I was annoyed nor
anybody else. I'm sorry for not being there during the first months
you've put that draft in shape. There is no place I have seen where you
said in the first place the discussions were over until now by the way.
No spec is perfect, nor should we waste
our time trying to make them so. Is the spec good enough? I think so.
You do but recognise at least that what was merely a question from my
part showed that a few people hanging around here agreed on the
misleading name and a good alternative was quickly found. You have the
right to dismiss of course.
Are there any functional bugs? I don't think so. Can the spec text be
improved? Definitely, and I'll likely do so one more time between now
and when it's actually submitted for consideration as a standards track
RFC.
Well I wonder how since you define what's important and what's not.
I'm a bit annoyed now because my first message was not aiming at
changing the draft but to understand the meaning of that choice but now
you simply disregard any point of view at least me could make based on
the fact it is implemented through various vendors.
This is all fine as it's your decision but the way you put things is a
bit difficult to accept from a regular user point of view like me.
Could you please state on your blog then that the call for discussion on
this draft is over so that things become clear?
- Sylvain
