Subject: [idn] requirements-07

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:26:06 +0800

Requirements-07 has just been send to [email-masked]. 

Changes from -06:

1. Correcting typos at line 59 and 663.

2. Remove requirement [30] and renumber [31] to [30].

-James Seng

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:53:28 -0400

> 2. Remove requirement [30] and renumber [31] to [30].    

Without ever identifying who thought that zone-specific semantics MUST
be useful? Without ever identifying what use cases were offered for or
against such an apparently authorless assertion? Without a requirement
that zone-specific semantics MUST NOT be useful?

How ... creative.

Co-author and co-chair Seng asked me for alternate text. I responded
that without knowing why [30] ever came into being in the first place,
alternate text could not be the best course of action. Now, as if this
is "better" than the last botch (substituting "MAY" for "MUST"), all
requirement relative to semantic scope (and consistency or its lack)
has been removed.

There is something above peculiar in the process this WG is thrashing
under.

I'd like the authors of the document to respond to substantive queries,
not fumble serial text botches. I want to know why [30] was ever in, as
why it could be out is a much simpler question, though not necessarily
with only one answer.

Eric

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:00:09 +0800

Once again, we (Zita & myself) are not "authors" but rather "editors" of
this document. We did not come up with these requirements but rather
taking comments from the Working Group across our discussion since Nov
99 and piece them together.

If you want to track the source, you should not be looking for us. Look
for the one who made this comments OR you can find it by going thru the
archives http://www.i-d-n.net/ yourself.

ps: The reason for the slowness to response to your editorial is because
I have an filter which put emails from [email-masked] in the same
folder as Jeff Williams. You can consider it as /dev/null for all intent
and purposes.

-James Seng

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 15:13:27 +0800

Just another note:

[30] is drop at the request of John Klensin sent on 13th May:

"" From my point of view, the "appropriate wording change" is to
lose [30] --and any other notion of different things happening
in different zones-- entirely.  ...""

There is no further comments or objections to this after 10days.

-James Seng

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 07:15:10 -0400

> folder as Jeff Williams. You can consider it as /dev/null for all intent

Well, that clears up question I had about the delay in response to my question
on [30]. That doesn't clear up the the substantive question, though I suppose
"search the archives" is a responsible substitute from anyone for a considered
response.

Tia,
Eric

---

From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:11:07 -0400

At 01:00 PM 5/23/01 +0800, James Seng/Personal wrote:
<snip>>ps: The reason for the slowness to response to your editorial is
because
>folder as Jeff Williams. You can consider it as /dev/null for all intent

Coming from the co-chair of this WG, who IMHO should be giving equal care
and consideration to input from all participants in the WG, this comment
and the behavior that it describes are wholly inappropriate.

Bill Semich/Personal

---

From: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:10:40 +0800

I have some other personal conflict with Eric. I have put him on the
filter because I do not want to wish to spend my time arguing (or
getting upset) over his mails to me. My filter on him is not a
representation of his technical contribution nor ability but rather a
personal thing between two of us.

I wish I have a better excuse but I don't. I apologise to the Working
Group and to Eric Brunner if any of you gets the wrong idea.

ps: mails posted to the mailing lists as precedence over any other
filter so I do read every mail on the list.

-James Seng

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. William Semich" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Seng/Personal" <[email-masked]>; "Eric Brunner-Williams in
Portland Maine" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [idn] requirements-07

---

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 10:05:21 -0400

I expected that failing to be convinced of James' views on the authentication
mechanism in dns registry provisioning (provreg) would have to be paid for
somewhere. The payback of not reading my draft and not breaking my rice bowl
commentaries on the ietf-provreg list clearly weren't sufficient.

I'll go stand next to Bill Simpson in the disliked-by-the-chair corner for the
obligatory 60 seconds and then get back to the work of contributing towards
interoperable engineering.

Cheers,
Eric