On 11/29/2011 07:28, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Doug,
I did not refer to your message. The only two responses to the October 10
Last Call regarding draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 were:
-
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=60292&tid=1322579909
-
https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=933&k2=59923&tid=1322579994
The message that you reference below, as well as many other messages, were
in response to a an August 19 Last call regarding
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03. Many of the problems pointed
out in that last call were addressed between versions 03 and 09 of the
document. However, many were not. Therefore, I summarized what I believed to
be the outstanding issues in the message that I posted last night.
Thanks for clarifying. My concern was that my message may have fallen
into the category, "offered many editorial comments, but almost no
rationale for blocking the draft once the editorial comments are
addressed." Now I see that you were looking at a completely different
last call. Silly me.
If I missed any outstanding issues, please add to the list.
My issue remains simple. This is a bad idea. It will still be a bad idea
no matter how it's dressed up.
hth,
Doug
--
"We could put the whole Internet into a book."
"Too practical."
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf