On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:23 AM 12/4/14, Ted Lemon
<Ted(_dot_)Lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:00 PM, <l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk>
<l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
That's an ad-hominem argument that has no bearing on the current proposal.
It's not "ad hominem" to ask someone why they think one thing is different
from another. I actually agree with Bob that the abstract to 6346 says
something that's not true, and it needs to be changed (I hadn't thought about
it before he pointed out the problem). I asked Bob why he didn't object to
the other proposals because I wanted to know. I doubt he was unaware of
them.
It would help me understand your question (as a 3rd party to the conversation)
if you would say more about why you think an objection to the tex Bob quoted
from RFC 6346 would be related to objections to MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight
4over6.
- Ralph