Subject: Re: Non-standard language justification

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:15:44 -0700 (PDT)

Henry Spencer <henry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>No, that part isn't a problem.

Yes, it is. You may not care that things you've never seen are presented 
to the world as if you agreed with them, but I do.

---

From: Henry Spencer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:56:35 -0400 (EDT)

> to the world as if you agreed with them, but I do.

There is nothing in a *draft* -- note that word -- which says that the
entire WG agrees with it.  (Actually, even a finished RFC doesn't imply
unanimous consent, since that is not the IETF definition of "consensus".)

To quote what I said about this a year ago, the last time you brought
this up:

  That's the way IETF drafts work -- they are documents for discussion 
  and review, not official products that the WG is deemed to stand 
  behind.  They get sent to IETF as drafts, as a way of making them 
  available, not because they are "our product".

  Is the word "draft" so hard to understand?

  Why have two levels of draft process when one suffices?  There's no 
  need to have "tentative" drafts and "real" ones -- a draft is 
  tentative by definition.

                                                          Henry Spencer
                                                       [email-masked]

---

From: Seth Breidbart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:12:52 -0400 (EDT)

> to the world as if you agreed with them, but I do.

And if I've seen them, and disagreed with them, and argued against
them, and voted against them, they're still presented exactly the same
way.

Seth