Which part of "no-op" did you interpret as indicating a faux pas?
Just trying to help people avoid sending more mail than necessary.
Tho' since people seem to be optimizing by aggregation there probably
won't be much overall reduction in email.
There's no intent to indicate a faux pas in that observation, either.
--Sandy
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010, George Michaelson wrote:
On 18/11/2010, at 10:49 AM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
Looks like I need to say:
Support on wg calls from authors of the documents under consideration is
essentially a no-op for my determination of consensus. I consider having
authored a document sufficient indication of support.
(Note that this means that adding a whole bunch of co-authors could leave a
draft without anyone to stand and cheer when needed.)
--Sandy
Then please note my co-authorship of keyroll, repos-struct, res-certs,
provisioning, roa-validation, ta and adjust accordingly.
And accept my apologies for a faux pas
-george
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
