Hi Robin, > Maybe your vision of an enlightened debate doesn't accord with that > of others. I have been trying to do the same thing and it seems you > and I rarely agree about how to discuss things or about how to solve > the routing scaling problem. Other people appreciate my efforts to > understand and discuss their proposals - so maybe my idea of how to > debate things is shared more by other people than yours is.
That may well be. Doesn't make it right, however. >> I'm not expecting anyone to develop a recommendation. I'm not expecting >> anyone to be happy with it. > > Does this mean you are going to develop the recommendation? Yes, that's on the co-chairs. > My interpretation of this is that you and Lixia will write the > recommendation and while you will read or listen to what people have > to say about it, you won't promise to take notice of any of it or to > alter your text according to the views expressed by RRG participants. Correct. > In the past, you have stated your intention to achieve consensus on a > recommendation. Now I understand you don't intend to achieve or even > test for consensus on the recommendation you and Lixia will prepare. Yes, that changed. >> Again, we've been trying to have that debate for three years. > > I believe you have not contributed much to the debate. The feeling is mutual. > You frequently requested we debate "architectures" - as if this was > somehow different from proposals. Yet I don't recall an instance of > you leading by example with any such messages. Not everything happens on the mailing list. > I don't see how you could be sure of this if you haven't tried. We've tried several times to simply agree on what terminology we would use. All attempts failed. Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
