> From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <[email protected]>
> However, the net result is largely the same. Whatever the underlying
> reasoning, and no matter how sound it may appear, we still have
> fundamental disagreement that is leading to an unwillingness to
> compromise to move towards consensus.
True.
> If there are still fundamental disagreements about certain things,
> like changing vs not changing hosts, etc, then that means the risk
> is high that we might be choosing wrong.
Also true. The usual way to deal with that is 'try several', to reduce
risk that the 'chosen alternative' turns out to not be workable. That's
not formally possible here, but I suspect that informally that's what's
going to happen.
>> The intention of 3 is that there be _two_ documents
> Ok, that's better than what I was thinking you were suggesting
Err, wasn't my suggestion - that was Vince Fuller.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
