At 14:10 -0400 6/2/11, Scott Rose wrote:
Then perhaps a wording change? It seems that it is confusion over the
language rather than the purpose.
A wording change is probably needed, but I can't suggest one because
I can't determine what the goal is from what's currently written. I
know that sounds like a cheap shot, but I'm definitely not getting
something here.
E.g., I'm assuming the document is suggesting that the IANA registry
have the new column and that is my main complaint. (That it
shouldn't.) If the matrix with the compliance column only appears in
the document, while the IANA registry omits the column, I have no
complaint. Perhaps IANA lists the document as a reference at the end
of the matrix, but the registry contents itself doesn't hold
"recommendations."
Does that make sense?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
Now, don't say I'm always complaining.
Wait, that's a complaint, isn't it?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf