Subject: Re: [EAI] proposal - can we reach consensus? - text for

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 18:36:32 +0000

> I prefer it to attempting to cover all the cases that someone might do
> if they're not conforming to the RFCs we're working on.  To me,
> attempting to list all the ways in which someone can do something
> _other_ than the standard behaviour will just lead people to interpret
> those descriptions as the right thing to do sometimes. 

> A

Eh?  I got confused reading that (I missed the "it to" I guess) but it sounds like you concur with the proposed approach?

-Shawn

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:54:17 -0400

Shawn (and others),

Please, if possible, avoid quoting part of a message out of
context without identifying the source well enough that others
can find the whole original message.  That identification could
be simply identifying the author in a To: or Cc: header, by
including an identifying line (as in the example below), or
otherwise. But, when you partially quote someone and then make a
further comment (especially if it is to agree or disagree),
enough context to identify the context would be really helpful.

thanks.
   john

--On Wednesday, August 18, 2010 18:36 +0000 Shawn Steele
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I prefer it to attempting to cover all the cases that someone
>> might do if they're not conforming to the RFCs we're working
>> on.  To me, attempting to list all the ways in which someone
>> can do something _other_ than the standard behaviour will
>> just lead people to interpret those descriptions as the right
>> thing to do sometimes. 
> 
>> A
> 
> Eh?  I got confused reading that (I missed the "it to" I
> guess) but it sounds like you concur with the proposed
> approach?