On Sep 14, 2016, at 4:56 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels <t...@ripe.net> wrote:
> ...
> I understand that this is the opinion of the authors. I still disagree. A 
> weaker word such as "unwanted" or "anomalous" can also be used - it is less 
> likely to confuse a reader, and can be equally clarified in the introduction.
> 
> Again, let the chairs note that I cannot support the term "adverse" and take 
> it from there.

Tim - 
  
   I have no view on this matter either way, but am seeking clarity on your 
objection
   to the term “adverse” in the document - is it with regard to simply the 
title of the 
   document, or also with regard to the usage of the term in text of the 
document 
   itself?   (the former would represent a minor change, whereas the latter 
would  
   require more a significant change to resolve.)

Thanks,
/John

p.s. my views alone - not necessarily even worth the electrons used in transport







_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr

Reply via email to