Eliot Lear wrote:
Dave,
I'll repeat that distinction: The current draft does not deal with
exact-name
vs. sub-tree issues as an explicit point of distinction; it has bits of each
scattered around. As such, the specification is, at best, confusing on the
distinction, nevermind incomplete on the tree construct.
Can you suggest wording?
Let me nip this in the bud: No.
I believe the entire effort to do more than deal with an exact-match names is a
mistake and that all component details that attempt to expand the scope should
be removed from the specification.
So the "suggested wording" I would offer is to remove text from the
specification, not add it.
1. The cited thread shows a complete lack of anything one might call
consensus.
That's because the consensus was formed at the meeting, as the minutes
and Jim's presentation shows. Be sure to look at those too.
I seem to recall that decisions are not made at working group meetings. They
are made on the mailing list.
So I'd be curious for a citation on the mailing list where the consensus from
the meeting was reviewed and confirmed.
d/
ps. Yes, this is all painful. It is also a good lesson about why being
careful
with process is particularly important for topics that are complex and poorly
understood.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html