On 1/23/12 4:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 1/23/12 4:52 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> -02 is a marked improvement over the version I reviewed. All my >> concerns were addressed. >> >> --Martin >> >> On Jan 18, 2012 8:14 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Martin, here is my perspective... >>> >>> On 12/17/11 ?:46 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: >>>> "It is easy" is not an especially good reason. >>> >>> Martin, is there *harm* in completing these registrations via >>> informational RFCs? >> >> I don't find that reason any more compelling. How about: "this is the >> one we chose and there isn't a good reason to choose either, so this >> will do"? Which is probably what you meant anyhow... > > How about: "everyone else was doing it that way so the author didn't see > a good reason to buck the trend"?
In any case, I see no reason to hold up publication of this I-D given (1) that we have two other I-Ds taking the same path and (2) you said: "-02 is a marked improvement over the version I reviewed. All my concerns were addressed." I'm going to ask Russ to clear his DISCUSS. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
