On Monday, March 27, 2006 at 7:43 PM Chris Lewis wrote:
John R Levine wrote:
This document has been submitted to the RFC editor for possible
publication. They have asked for the ASRG to comment on
it. Comments
could include how accurate it is, changes that would be
needed before
publishing it, etc.
There's a number of logical inconsistencies, false
conclusions, and even just plain wrong arithmetic. The
sample set is grossly too small etc etc. etc.
Not to mention the historical inaccuracies ...
I'd put some time into this if I had any, but I'm already hammering away
at You Know What. I might take the time to throw a few rocks at it
after Chris & Co. get something started.
Is an appropriate response: "This is such a poorly thought-out,
inaccurate and shoddy piece of work that the ASRG doesn't wish to waste
any further time with it."? Or does the ASRG need to spell out why it's
sooo baaaadd?
Regards,
Nick
PS: How in the world did it get from -00 to -01? I thought -00 would
die the quiet death it deserved after it was originally put forward.
Was there even a scintilla of support expressed for -00 or is its
continued existence simply sheer bull-headedness on the part of the
author, another Dean Anderson?
--
Nick Nicholas
Knowledge Engineer
Habeas Inc.
650-694-3320
nick(_at_)habeas(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg