actually, the documents are being written to reflect the discussion here. but i guess what i'm hearing is that you would prefer to see how all the ideas we're presenting line up in a single document. okay. lemme get on that. -cheers -meadhbh On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca at gmail.com> wrote: > Nothing wrong with your writing, it is just hard to discuss *anything* > without underlaying documents. What we need are new versions of the drafts. > -Vaughn > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:03:23PM +0100, Carlo Wood wrote: >> > If we expect messages that update state to be lost, then there >> > two several ways to recover: >> >> Excuse my English :p ... Obviously I meant "then there two ways..." >> >> While I value Vaughn's responses highly, I was hoping on >> eactions to my posts from others as well... Is it my English, >> making me look like a noob maybe? Or is it too trivial/technical? >> >> -- >> Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com> >> _______________________________________________ >> ogpx mailing list >> ogpx at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx > > > _______________________________________________ > ogpx mailing list > ogpx at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx > >
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.