Michael Thomas wrote: > Eric Allman wrote: >> I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the >> topic that Mike was talking about. When you break existing >> implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version, >> you do create problems for the people who are volunteering to live on >> the bleeding edge --- and tend to be the best people to give you >> practical feedback. There should be a good reason for this. Perhaps >> we have a good reason here, perhaps not. But I heard you say on >> Monday that implementations of drafts should not be a consideration >> on how to proceed. I disagree --- it should be a consideration. Not >> as big a consideration as Mike believes, perhaps, but a consideration >> none the less. > > I'm only asking for it to be *a* consideration.
It is. But I don't see anyone else having such a problem with this. If they do, they should speak up. > I'm pretty convinced > the people debating these name changes were clueless about the That kind of statement is not helpful. Stephen. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
