Arvel explained: > I think this approach is good enough in my case because although I > have been overly optimistic at times concerning our progress I have > nevertheless been warning my customers that SSP is contentious (much > MUCH more so than BASE) and thus likely to go through several > revisions. I've sort of smoothed this over by reminding customers > that they were helping the process by using the various incarnations > and reporting on any technical failings. So far, I've not been > flooded with complaints other than "you people hurry up and get this > done already" which is to be expected.
Do you think that the change to _asp or _adsp or _frodo and all/discardable will cause unhappiness amongst your installed base, or should we keep going with the near-consensus changes? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
