Subject: [Ltru] Re: comments in the registries

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:25:09 -0700

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

> This would require a very small modification in the ABNF of record-
> jar, as follows:
>
> -- was --
> registry   = record *("%%" CRLF record)
> ...
> -- proposed --
> registry   = *( 1*(separator) record)
> separator  = "%%" *ASCCHAR CRLF
> ...

I realize the core issue that this was supposed to solve is in line to
be solved in a different way, but I did want to point out that I would
have opposed any change that *required* a %% comment before the first
record.  Such a thing should always be optional.  (Perhaps this belongs
on the record-jar mailing list, which is a bit less active than this
one. :-)

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:35:50 -0700

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> I propose that we ask our ADs to permit the following updates:
> Aug 05  Submit registry structure draft for IETF Last Call
> Oct 05  Submit matching algorithms draft for IETF Last Call
>
> I think these are realistic if we stop lilly-gilding.

To help reduce the lily-gilding phenomenon, I'd like to ask the
co-chairs to adopt the following guidelines:

1.  ABNF

No further requests to change the ABNF in draft-registry or
draft-matching should be entertained unless it can be demonstrated that
the existing ABNF (a) contradicts the text of the draft, (b) fails when
run through a validator, or (c) must be changed to reflect a new
technical decision (which we should not be having at this point anyway).
Changes to the ABNF for cosmetic reasons should be discouraged.
"Contradiction" between text and ABNF refers only to context-free
syntax.

2.  References

All requests to add or delete references, change them from Normative to
Informative status or vice versa, or change their format or style should
be directed to the co-chair(s), not the editors, and should contain
proposed replacement text, preferably in xml2rfc format.  All changes
need to be at the direction of the co-chair(s).

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:39:02 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> Kent's idea "Description:" was clear, but this confuses
> Doug's implementation.

I did say that it was not a big deal to tweak my implementation, if the
group decided to go ahead with the file-level "Description" field.
Probably I should not have mentioned it at all.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:24:03 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 8:35 PM
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: LTRU Milestones past due
>
...

Tempting though these suggestions might be, the Working Group is
the responsible entity.  The co-chairs' job is to guage consensus
and to attend to other process-related functions.  We can beg, cajole,
and try to persuade, but if the working group clearly wants to do
something and it's within the scope of our charter and not otherwise
forbidden by IETF processes, we can't override it.

Let's wrap up this part of our work so we can get on with the metching
draft.

Randy, ltru co-chair