Eliot Lear wrote: > Dave, >> I'll repeat that distinction: The current draft does not deal with >> exact-name >> vs. sub-tree issues as an explicit point of distinction; it has bits of each >> scattered around. As such, the specification is, at best, confusing on the >> distinction, nevermind incomplete on the tree construct. > > Can you suggest wording?
Let me nip this in the bud: No. I believe the entire effort to do more than deal with an exact-match names is a mistake and that all component details that attempt to expand the scope should be removed from the specification. So the "suggested wording" I would offer is to remove text from the specification, not add it. >> 1. The cited thread shows a complete lack of anything one might call >> consensus. > > That's because the consensus was formed at the meeting, as the minutes > and Jim's presentation shows. Be sure to look at those too. I seem to recall that decisions are not made at working group meetings. They are made on the mailing list. So I'd be curious for a citation on the mailing list where the consensus from the meeting was reviewed and confirmed. d/ ps. Yes, this is all painful. It is also a good lesson about why being careful with process is particularly important for topics that are complex and poorly understood. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
