[rfc-i] not just 'lineprinter' (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Jun 30 22:52:23 PDT 2014
Yes. And Dave has admitted to not answering my questions because he believes I'm going to snare him in a rhetorical trap of some kind when actually... I really just want to understand the requirements for the next set of formats we're building. If we missed something in 6949 we could either rev it or document why we didn't follow why it said, for example.
If he doesn't want to provide requirements, I can't make him, but I also can't factor them into the design process.
> On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:28 PM, "Ted Lemon" <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 1, 2014, at 1:02 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> I gave a summary, earlier this evening:
> Okay, I see why you and Joe disagree: Joe is trying to talk about the actual requirements that have already been decided upon and published as RFC 6949. You appear to want to talk about a specific use case you have. This is perfectly understandable, but discussing your use case in isolation from the existing requirements is not useful, because you are advocating a specific solution to a problem that is required to be solved in RFC 6949, but the solution you are proposing is incompatible with some of the _other_ requirements of RFC 6949.
> So this is why Joe keeps asking you for clarification and then disagreeing with you.
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
More information about the rfc-interest