Dave Crocker wrote: >> IMO its in-between. > > What does that mean? What portions or aspects of it qualify as > 'non-technical marketing'?
I assume its aimed at a less technical audience. > > >> Yes. That's why I'd rather that we focus on the document, not on >> external text. If you were proposing new text for the introduction >> then it'd be right on the mark, as-is, I worry that it'll be >> distracting. > > I'll repeat: You have a working group that has demonstrated a widely > divergent understanding of what SSP is. That tends to undermine claims > of real working group consensus. > > You ought to welcome an exercise that could facilitate convergence of > basic points. Sure. If you wanted to recast the text as an alternative to the current introduction of the I-D, then I'd welcome the effort. Right, now I don't think that working on two different descriptions of the same thing on the same list is a good idea. > >>> The second point should makes it useful for me to gather comments from >>> this list, before I circulate a purportedly factual description of SSP >>> to others. >> >> Fair enough to do that, after we have WG consensus. For now, its >> a little premature. > > You think that formulating a summary statement of facts, after a couple > of years of effort and just before Last Call is somehow premature, > particularly when the lack of working group consensus on core decisions > seems pretty evident? I think that writing such external text would be much more likely to be useful (and lead to a more a accurate result) after we've processed the issue in our tracker. S. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
