Subject: #1030 and #1031

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:44:46 +0200

I've closed these two tickets since there appeared to be no specific 
suggestions for text changes that could be made from them.

Some other tickets have been spun off from their discussion.

Subject lines: "Backwards compatibility and handling incompatibilities" 
(1030) and "Standard terminology and text" (1031).

                      Harald

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:42:37 -0400

> suggestions for text changes that could be made from them.

It is deceptive to create tickets as placeholders for "later
discussion (because there are other things being discussed)" and then
later close tickets because they had no discussion.

It is wrong to close a ticket because there were no "specific
suggestions for text changes."

A ticket represents something that needs work.  You can't close
it just because no one worked on it.

> Some other tickets have been spun off from their discussion.

If other tickets were created that detail all of the same
issues, closing older duplicate tickets is fine.  There may
be other reasons to close a ticket too, but the reasons you
gave are unacceptably weak.

> Subject lines: "Backwards compatibility and handling incompatibilities" 

Point of order: 1030 was opened because Bruce indicated that consistent
terminology was important.  He indicated that specific text would be
suggested when the Chair ruled on the basic idea.

The 1030 issue text had this sentence:

     "The following sections need to be changed because of that -
     details to be discussed when the basic change is accepted:
    (probably 1.4), 2.1, 2.2, (small note in 3.6), 3.1.1, 3.1.2,
    3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.5

Did the Chair rule? If so, it was not indicated in any message with
a subject that started Re: #1030.

> "Standard terminology and text" (1031).

That ticket had this text:
    The following sections of USEFOR version -03 need to be changed because
    of that - details to be discussed when the basic change is accepted:
    1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1,4, 3.1.5,
    3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7,
    3.2.8, 3.2.9, 3.2.10, 3.2.11, 3.2.12, 3.2.13, 3.3, 3.3.1, maybe 4,
    probably 5, An IANA Considerations section is missing but REQUIRED
    (per ID-Guidelines and "Instructions to RFC Authors"), 6.2, Appendix A.

    Note that most of the changes are small and could be performed
    automatically. In other cases, a section needs to be moved (Appendices
    are supposed to appear before references) or added (IANA Considerations).
    Several of the changes are due to requirements which are not currently
    met by the draft.

It was my understanding that a lot of what Bruce suggested in that ticket
was clean-up work.  If the Editor wants help on specific text, then ask.
Bruce was very specific in reviewing the sections.  Otherwise, how can you
close it because there was no specific text.

The right way of handling these items in a ticket system was for the chair
to decide on the basic change, and then have the document editor take a
shot at it, and provide differences to the list.  Changes to sections
not controversial in that set should get noted as being accepted, and then
you create a shorter list of items to work on.  Then you can either track
it inside of the same ticket, or split out the remaining items to separate
tickets, and close 1030 as a duplicate.

"Sleight of hand" with the ticket system may help you get a "clean" ticket
system by some deadline, but it will not result in an acceptable work product
by that deadline.  A ticket system is an approximation of the readiness of
a document.  Closing tickets does not change the reality.

It is my opinion that not fully addressing the issues in 1030 and 1031 will
result in a document that fails Last Call as a matter of fact, not just
a matter of opinion.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:37:27 +0200

Forrest,

the apparent consensus of the WG (as I read it) was that there was no way 
to tell from Bruce's suggestion what changes he intended to bring about 
based on them; one of them certainly was the "header" -> "header field" 
global replace, but from the way Bruce formulated himself, there was no way 
to tell whether that was the whole issue.

He had multiple people tell him that same thing, and chose not to clarify 
(as far as I can tell).

As Chair, I cannot rule consensus on a suggestion where the group cannot 
tell what the suggestion actually means.

                       Harald