[rfc-i] New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt

Thomas Clausen ietf at thomasclausen.org
Fri Jun 27 09:38:01 PDT 2014

On Jun 27, 2014, at 18:29, Ted Lemon <mellon at fugue.com> wrote:

> On Jun 27, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Thomas Clausen <ietf at thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>> Because I’m not asking you to re-architect your house — but you are telling me that I need to re-architect mine to your preferences.
> No, I am telling you that we are re-architecting _our_ house, because the current architecture is inadequate for a variety of reasons which have been stated.   It is not your house.   
> You have as much say as any other IETF participant, and no more.

Oh, how you carefully crafted your the strawman so that it wasn’t clear what the “house” was - cleverly done, Ted, kudos. I fell right into the trap that you’d set up for me there.

Here I was thinking that “house" was “tools and workflows used for when producing and reviewing IETF output” — but the way you’d set up the strawman allowed you to turn it around to make “house” be “document format”, then insinuate that I thought I deserved more “say” than others.

>   So if you have a blocking objection to the proposal, it needs to be for a stronger reason than the one you stated.
> I certainly agree with you that there are examples where specifying the page number and some relative offset is easier than specifying the paragraph number, but so what?
> BTW, if the paragraph number is just a monotonically increasing counter, then it's _always_ easier to specify the paragraph number: you just say "par. 37" and need no relative offset.

Julian asked for feedback on this particular document, which didn’t have paragraph numbers in the output format he requested be generated, so that comment is neither here nor there.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list