Re: Detective story (was: Language editing)

2013-05-07 Thread Yoav Nir
On May 7, 2013, at 1:08 AM, SM wrote: > At 13:23 06-05-2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I don't that is quite right. The problem in this case is not to do >> with linguistic quality. It's due to a lack of formal verification > > Quoting from the detective story: > > "At [censored] we have ch

Re: secdir review of draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-17

2013-05-07 Thread Gonzalo Camarillo
Hi Samuel, the authors of this draft have reviewed it in order to address your comments: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-cs-18 Could you please have a look at this revision and let them know whether you are happy with it? Thanks, Gonzalo On 04/02/2013 9:08 PM, Samuel Weiler

Re: Last Call: (IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters) to Best Current Practice

2013-05-07 Thread joel jaeggli
On 5/7/13 12:07 PM, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters' as Best Current Practice Sponsoring AD here, Getting feedback on

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 Thread ned+ietf
> Maybe things have changed, but, if one actually believes the > robustness principle, then, in the case Geoff cites, Exchange is > simply non-conforming -- not because the spec prohibits > rejecting on the basis of a fine distinction about IPv6 formats, > but because doing so is unnecessary, incon

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 Thread John C Klensin
--On Tuesday, May 07, 2013 08:08 -0700 Ned Freed wrote: >> Maybe things have changed, but, if one actually believes the >> robustness principle, then, in the case Geoff cites, Exchange >> is simply non-conforming -- not because the spec prohibits >> rejecting on the basis of a fine distinction

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote: ... >> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with >> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points >> out, we deployed something with a restriction that >> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're stuck >> wit

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 Thread ned+ietf
> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote: > ... > >> I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with > >> formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points > >> out, we deployed something with a restriction that > >> subsequently turned out to be unnecessary, and now we're

Re: call for ideas: tail-heavy IETF process

2013-05-07 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
On 5/2/13 4:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 5/2/2013 3:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: >> But the delay was really not my main concern. Primarily because I >> think other issues such as transparency to the working group or late >> surprises are more fundamental issues than mere timing. But also >> because

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 08/05/2013 08:33, Ned Freed wrote: >> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote: >> ... I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points out, we deployed something with a restriction that subsequently turn

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 Thread Randy Presuhn
Hi - > From: "Brian E Carpenter" > To: "Ned Freed" > Cc: "John C Klensin" ; ; > > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 2:19 PM > Subject: Re: Language editing ... > You are correct if only considering the mail standards. I suspect > that a serious attempt at formal verification would have thrown > up a

Re: Language editing

2013-05-07 Thread ned+ietf
> On 08/05/2013 08:33, Ned Freed wrote: > >> On 08/05/2013 03:28, John C Klensin wrote: > >> ... > I'll also point out that this has diddley-squat to do with > formal verification processes. Again as Mark Anrdrews points > out, we deployed something with a restriction that > sub