Dan Harkins wrote: > Slicing up my posts and building up a straw man army is very > distracting. You attempted to help by adding my comment to the > problematic text. That didn't help, thanks for the effort though.
You brought up specific concerns, and I pointed out that the document already addresses them. I asked for clarification on any concerns you had that *weren't* addressed by the document. We're back to: > ... There is a property we need > in the tunnel method and the requirements at the beginning of 3.1 do > not, in my opinion, adequately describe that property. My text does. I could ask for clarificiation again on what *exactly* do you mean by "a property", but that's how this "straw man army" got started. I think I understand what properties you want to be required. I think that you already agreed the properties are satisfied by the requirements as written. The main disagreement appears to be simply how best to phrase those requirements. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
