ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"

2006-01-06 13:27:37
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote:

Randy,

      Nosey, aren't we?  :-)

Nah, I was interested in technical objections, not family history.

[snippage]

      ASCII isn't good enough for me, but PDF is useful where the
problem is really bad.  Between them (counting PS as a variation
of PDF - especially since I have to convert PS to PDF to read it)
they are what there is.

      My point in making a terse response was that all that was
asked for was objections.  Sometimes, reasons are neither asked
for nor needed.

and sometimes they are...

      I suspect that - now that you know the reasons - you might
agree that this was one of those times...

Yes.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Randy.Dunlap [mailto:rdunlap(_at_)xenotime(_dot_)net]
--> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:21 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: 'Sandy Wills'; Ken Raeburn; IETF General Discussion Mailing List
--> Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus"
-->
--> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
-->
--> > -->     "I think we have reached substantial agreement on
--> the following
--> > --> statement:  ASCII text was good enough for my
--> Grandfather, and it's
--> > --> going to be good enough for my grandchildren.  Please
--> reply to this
--> > --> CfC if you object."
-->
--> IMO an objection should be required to also have an explanation.
-->
--> > I object.
-->
--> Why?  to which parts?  the grandfather/grandchildren?

-- 
~Randy

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf