The new text makes it quite clear that the recommendation is just the
recommendation of the chairs. That's good enough for me.
(While one could suggest I am less picky on this, since I actually agree
with the recommendation, I would note that I have been among those
pushing strongly that the document not claim to be a recommendation from
the RRG. The RRG clearly has no consensus of any kind on what we should
do.)
Yours,
Joel
Vince Fuller wrote:
Here's the next pass at section 17. Please comment.
Hi Tony-
Thanks for your continuing efforts to improve this document.
As I stated in my previous message, I object to the "recommendation"
section being included in a document that is billed as a product of a
group calling itself "the RRG", particularly if I am considered a
member of that group by virtue of my inclusion on this mailing list,
my attendance at RRG meetings, and/or my participation in RRG
discussions during the past three years.
I would happy seeing the document, minus the "recommendation" section,
published as a product of "the RRG". The "recommendation" section
should be separately submitted as an individual submission to the IETF
by you and Lixia as it reflects your opinions and not those of the larger
membership of "the RRG".
Thank you for your consideration.
--Vince
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
