I have read the document, I have no issues with it. -- Tony D'Amato, SCSA Senior UNIX Systems Administrator Server Support Group Office of Computing and Communications Services Old Dominion University
[email protected] wrote:
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 13:07:29 -0600 From: "Douglas E. Engert"<[email protected]> Subject: [AFS3-std] A call for consensus on draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-07 To: [email protected] Message-ID:<[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed We have a request to proceed with a call for consensus on: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names-07 Our draft procedures say a call should last at least 1 week, and this being the first, I would like extend that to Thursday December 16. Consensus as used by the IETF is not a vote but a general agreement by the working group that the draft has addressed all issues. If there is someone who strongly disagrees with some issue the group should make ever effort to understand the issue even if the one making the point is having trouble expressing the issue. Members should read the document and if you have issues please state them and indicate what needs to be changed. If you have no issues, let us know that too. Please respond using the subject from this e-mail.
_______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
