![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
At 06:07 a.m. 03/12/2008, Lars Eggert wrote:
I have produced a separate PDF document with such a discussion, and have provided a pointer to it in the Introduction. Please let me know if you think this addresses the issue you raised. WG: Is this okay with the working group, or is any other approach preferred rather than the one I hve taken to adderss David's comments?Quick follow-up: I have suggested to Fernando the alternative of including a short section of text on just this issue in the document itself, instead of referencing a PDF that includes a lot of other test (the PDF is basically what used to be appendix A, which was removed based on WG feedback). But that is also not aligned with prior WG consensus, since it would move some text back that we had removed. Basically, David's comment is asking for some text that WG consensus had removed from the document, and we need to come to an agreement on whether we want to revisit this consensus and add some text or point to another document, or if we want to tell David that he's on the rough side of the consensus.
FWIW, my personal take is that adding a reference to that PDF can address David's comments without having to add text back to the I-D.
Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando at gont.com.ar || fgont at acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.