I was speaking as a WG participant, and I was referring to my proposal made in that capacity. Furthermore, there is nothing factually wrong with what I said, nor you appear to question that. The text that you oddly claim will take years to resolve, took 5 mins to agree with Ian (yesterday). Perhaps it's not your intent, but you're actually flaming the flames here...
On 4 March 2014 11:18, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 4, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, but I'll insist for a number of reasons: > > Woj, can we please not speak in terms of "insisting"? You are a working > group participant. If you have a technical issue _which would prevent the > standard from functioning_ then you do have some degree of veto power, but > this point doesn't rise to that level. > > The text here only functions to explain to a person who is not familiar > with either draft which draft they should implement. In that unlikely > scenario, the text as written does not give sufficient guidance. In order > to meet that need, the text would have to be more like what Ian is > describing. > > So if that is in fact the use case you are shooting for, I think you > should work with Ian on the draft he's proposed. There is no way to get > that by wordsmithing this text. > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
