On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:33:33PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:

> encourage that view.  The draft wording in Section 4 is vague, but can
> be read to encourage that view.  I've given text to disambiguate the 
> draft, but that text was refused by the author. I think most people on 
> the Working Group agree with the statements in my proposed text.

I am merely an editor, and for that matter only one of them.  But to
be clear: I didn't refuse anything.  The question is still open; I've
asked for feedback from the group.  So far, one person has made
claims similar but, I think, rather more nuanced than your claims. 
Several other people have disagreed with you.  If people agree with
your proposed text, I'd like to hear from them.  (Group members: if
you have such agreement, now would be a good time to make it known.)

As always, I appreciate your feedback, as well as all of that from
the other members of this group, so that we can bring to a swift
conclusion the disposition of this draft.  (I should note, too, that
I have already proposed changes to deal with one of your objections
which seemed to me to be on the money.  I didn't hear from your,
AFAIR, what you thought of those proposals.)

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110


_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

Reply via email to