You've backed off to a level of abstraction where agreement is
possible--but that also means it's far enough away from the problem
that people don't see its relevance.
I have to concur with this. Even though it's reasonable to assume most
list members are technical folk, that does not imply in the slightest
that they have experience or even interest in "formal methods". I paid
enough attention in Formal Methods lectures to pass the exam, but I
wouldn't feel at all comfortable working under such a thing, let alone
defining one.
With regard to the Requirements and Technical Considerations documents,
it could simply be that most of the non-comments are because readers
don't see anything wrong with the documents as they stand.
My personal feeling is that the most valuable thing that could come
out of this group is a strong statement of consent, with a particular
goal of defeating the U.S. Congress', and DMA's attempt to make
opt-out the standard model.
Agreed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton
mail: chromi(_at_)chromatix(_dot_)demon(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/
tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg