On 2017 Jan 29 17:39:16, you wrote to me:

 NB>>> Yes. FTS-0001 is wrong in this regard. So since I'm supposed to
 NB>>> reference FTS-0001, I did.

 ml>> where does it say that you are supposed to do that?? just like
 ml>> expiration tags on your toes, there's nothing in the FTSC that says
 ml>> you have to reference FTS-0001... this document is a clarification of
 ml>> all three packets and how their data is different... if stephen has
 ml>> his document completed with the last round of adjustments, perhaps
 ml>> you could get that from him and present it instead of wading into all
 ml>> of this again and changing it from what he had done with all of his
 ml>> work on it...

 NB> I was just told by three people in this echo that I should, and that
 NB> ABNF should not be used at all.

where were they when this was originally posted? you have to remember, too,
that some are much too fido-centric for their own good...

 NB> I posted his latest (which was the FIRST draft #3 posted in this echo)

i thought we had worked on draft 3 and he went back to finalize it and post one
more... that's my understanding... your post in another area said that he did
post it but apparently it didn't make it past his feed... sadly, that's a known
problem but certainly it shouldn't stop that 4th draft from being presented...

 NB> with all the fixes you and him worked on a year ago. Once I posted it
 NB> all the ABNF referencing became confusing to a few people in this echo
 NB> and they all suggested referencing FTS-0001 instead.

everything in that 4th draft should be ok... what you have now is folks playing
games and pulling strings... be careful of the koolaid, too...

 NB>>> I don't suppose I can change this proposal to reflect anything else
 NB>>> until FTS-0001 is corrected, then?

 ml>> since randy bush has refused to give up his copyright on FTS-0001, it
 ml>> won't ever be updated but that doesn't mean that other documentation
 ml>> has to also be wrong... hell, look at what FSC-0048 does to
 ml>> FSC-0039... there are other similar documents that also give hints
 ml>> and perspectives on ways to work with different documents that may
 ml>> appear to have conflicting information...

 NB> That sure as hell didn't seem to be possible here in this echo. Even
 NB> the FTSC coordinator gave me said advice I mentioned above. *shrug*

you have to take things with a grain of salt/sugar at times... remember, too,
there is no coordinator... there is a chairperson but they hold no authority
other than being the interface between the FTSC and the public...

 NB> I still have the original document here, unmodified. Draft #4 could
 NB> easily be deleted, but it doesn't seem like a few here would accept
 NB> the original (one of them being the FTSC chair and the host of the
 NB> document website).

 NB> So what do you do then?

the FTSC is not ruled by one person... the members cast votes after
discussion... i'm not going to tell you what to do but if it were me, i'd try
to get stephen's last draft that didn't make it past his connection and go with
that regardless of other's preferences... especially when they didn't
participate originally or if they did, their input was rejected by stephen for
one reason or another... maybe you really should see if you can find an archive
of the traffic from that time and read over everything just to make sure you
are on the same wavelength that stephen was on as well as those working with
him...

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it
wrong...
... Home of left coast, pot smoking, crystal worshipping ravers & witches.
---