At 21:28 08/07/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
Hi - Ok, I think we've gone from a weak "accept" to a rough consensus to reject this proposal. I've updated the ticket accordingly. If you think there is value in further discussion, please include the issue number in the subject line.
For my own culture, I would be interested in understanding what are your criteria for rough consensus. My reading of this question is that practical observation makes a kind of referencing de facto built-in in usage? It would be better to document how - this is related to updates, dates, etc. But it might call for a revamp of the document structure. So I agree that we drop the matter. But "reject" may discourage futher more interesting ideas. I liked the Kentucky press and their tagging system.
Anyway, it is your show. Let it be your way. jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.