On 2/14/12 1:50 PM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
>> Are you now objecting to that replacement text and want -14 published as
>> is? Do you think the document should say that the new allocation can be
>> used as 1918 space? If so, please explain.
>
> Not sure how a +1 to a statement saying "I support this updated draft,
> and I
> am keen for this to be published as a BCP." can be interpreted in any
> but one
> way, or for that matter how it can be stated much differently.
>
> Anyway, to use different words, I would like to see the current draft
> approved and published as a BCP. Clear enough?
Nope. Perhaps my question was unclear. I'll try and ask my question
again with different words:
Do you, or do you not, object to the proposed change that changes the
text from saying, "This space may be used just as 1918 space" to "This
space has limitations and cannot be used as 1918 space"? Nobody on the
list objected to that new text. That new text significantly changes -14.
You have stated your support for -14. Do you object to changing the text?
I assumed the proposed change was in the current draft - isn't that how it's
supposed to be done? Anyway, I think the change is fine, but I also think
the draft is acceptable without it.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf