Hi, Alain, 2012-04-10 14:18, Alain Durand:
> Remi, Woj: > > We have heard a number of times that you both think the "other" solution is > broken. > Technical points have been made, Exchanging real technical points with Maoke isn't finished (he just posted a new draft about 4rd-U). Since this has been productive so far (despite some heat from time to time), clarifying the last points which we understand differently is useful (IMHO). > no need for personal attacks. I don't recognize myself in this one (at least as the initiator). > I'm getting concerned that the working group is losing sight of the very > reason why we participate to the IETF; to promote good standards, not to > fight endlessly about which of the two or three solutions we have on the > table (and that are 99% identical) is more "pure". Standardizing is about > finding common ground, not about ego, > fighting for whose name is on the draft, character assassination, using > disparaging language, Neither in this one. > threatening appeals, Feeling concerned with this one. However, exercising an appeal if found appropriate is each one's prerogative, and can sometimes be a duty. Sincerely hope to have no need for that. > boycotting, Feeling concerned with this one too. However, the fact is that, personally, I cannot answer YES and cannot answer NO either: - Now convinced that either MAP-T+E or 4rd-U on standard track is premature, I can't answer YES. - Also convinced that both on standard track would be a mistake, I can't vote NO. > or ballot stuffing. The proportion of this is well beyond what I thought was predictable. Please be sure that all these efforts of mine are for the best of standardization. Regards, RD > > Alain, wg-co-chair. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
