On 8/10/07, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In any case, it would be nice if people considering changes to the > protocol could be a bit more open about it so we could have some > discussion about how much sense it makes, and we could avoid a repeat > of the waste of time and effort with .u.
A negative result is still useful. It makes no sense to characterize .u this way (and I'm one of the guys who never liked it). We learned something of value. We have the code base and experience. That's what research is. Openness? We were very open to people who actually contributed code. ron
