On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:
I understand the current draft text is:
Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or may not
also
apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward
for IPv6.
I oppose this because it would allow the RRG not to recommend a
solution for IPv4.
...
I would support text such as:
...
Um. 433 words instead of 28? In order to reach rough consensus on the
direction the group is taking? Do you, perhaps, get paid by word? :-)
More seriously, while I understand some of your concerns (and disagree
with others), I think we need to plant a stake in the ground to
demonstrate at least some progress has been made. The statement Tony
provided is pretty watered down with respect to saying much of
anything, but it at least points to a prioritization and one that I'm
comfortable with. As such, I'm OK with the wording as is (although I
might prefer "Our recommendation must be ..." since it "must" appears
in the second sentence).
Regards,
-drc
--
to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
