2012/4/2 Rémi Després <remi.desp...@free.fr> > > Frankly, I don't understand the new objection: "concern if 4rd-u > possibly introduces..." is IMHO an incitation to FUD, but not a technically > justified issue. > If you can detail what you mean, with a point an experiment might reveal, > dialogue will continue. > Without that, I don't understand what you mean. >
well, IMHO i have expressed the question and it is concrete. i gently used the wording "possibly" because the verification could only be done after you have the 4rd-u system built out. > > > > it would become as a ridiculous and weird record in the ietf history, > had the wg made a decision of putting two as experimental, > > That was Alain's plan in case no consensus on a single standard would > emerge. > It was expressed on the ML well before the meeting. > You didn't object to it then, did you? > yes, i did objected (in this very thread) the chair's questions, esp. Q2, with "I don't think it is correct now to insert 4rd-u into a sort of exclusive decision of choice". regards, maoke
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
