Michael Thomas wrote:
so I erred on less controversy.
Some of us believe, rather strongly, that this is a particularly important
"bias" to the development of the requirements list. It occurs, to me, however,
that it might not be clear whether there is working group consensus on it.
I would be interested in seeing statements of preference for, or against, having
the requirements be minimalist, and include only those items for which there is
clear rough consensus to include.
If an item engenders real wg controversy, it is *not* included.
Comments?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html