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