You are wrong. But let me just give my best John Major impression from "Prime Minister's Question Time":
<approach podium> I refer the right-honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago. </approach podium> On Wed, December 2, 2009 10:50 pm, Alan DeKok wrote: > 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
