On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:33:33PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> encourage that view. The draft wording in Section 4 is vague, but can
> be read to encourage that view. I've given text to disambiguate the
> draft, but that text was refused by the author. I think most people on
> the Working Group agree with the statements in my proposed text.
I am merely an editor, and for that matter only one of them. But to
be clear: I didn't refuse anything. The question is still open; I've
asked for feedback from the group. So far, one person has made
claims similar but, I think, rather more nuanced than your claims.
Several other people have disagreed with you. If people agree with
your proposed text, I'd like to hear from them. (Group members: if
you have such agreement, now would be a good time to make it known.)
As always, I appreciate your feedback, as well as all of that from
the other members of this group, so that we can bring to a swift
conclusion the disposition of this draft. (I should note, too, that
I have already proposed changes to deal with one of your objections
which seemed to me to be on the money. I didn't hear from your,
AFAIR, what you thought of those proposals.)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x4110
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
