Errors-to: owner-drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Message-Id: <199508241853.OAA10616@wilma.cs.utk.edu>
From: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>
To: perry@piermont.com
cc: Keith Moore <moore@CS.UTK.EDU>, drums@CS.UTK.EDU
Subject: Re: Getting back on track 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 24 Aug 1995 14:09:15 EDT."
             <199508241809.OAA13264@frankenstein.piermont.com> 
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 14:53:53 -0400
Sender: moore@CS.UTK.EDU

> I'd guess, however, that 95% of the text will remain pretty much
> stable.

I don't know what form the documents will take.  I have suggested
that the authors consider following the existing formats for
RFCs 821 and 822, just because so many people are familiar with
them and because it will make comparisons easier.

> I think we'll have an easier time when we can all agree on
> most of it and then just make the small changes in the half dozen
> areas where there are disputes. The disputes are all over things that
> would end up being paragraph sized anyway from what I can tell.

No doubt things will be easier then, at least for most disputes.
(I can't tell yet which things will be the most difficult to resolve.)
But it appears that there are dozens of things to sort out.  And even 
if the result in the final document is only a single sentence, it could
take a while to understand and agree on what that sentence should
say and why.

The biggest danger I see in having discussions about issues now,
is that we might end up revisiting those same arguments later when
the documents cast the working group decisions in precise language.
But it's always the document author's job to interpret the working
group's wishes as technical prose, and while people do quibble about 
wording sometimes, that's not usually what takes up the time.

At any rate, it seems somewhat premature to write documents that 
purport to solve problems, without first defining those problems and 
determining which solutions are likely to win approval.

Keith