What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure toxicity. We
could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and maybe then define a
threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that particular string.
I would personally agree with your assessment that maintaining this
What would really help here would be standardize a way to measure toxicity. We
could then track a specific string toxicity over time, and maybe then define a
threshold where it is OK or not OK to delegate that particular string.
Yes, and that gets back to the question of whose job that is. As
I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is
documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed. One of the
reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the
original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions,
without the
I would just like to point out ...
I would like to wait and see what other people think about it.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
__
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> One of the reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed
> that the original effort had gone way too far down the path toward solutions,
> without there being a clear agreement on what problems exist, and what
> problems
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 11:37 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> I would just like to point out that what we are talking about doing is
> documenting the problem that we think needs to be addressed. One of the
> reasons we published a new document about this is that it seemed that the
> original effor
Alain, here's an example, from the abstract:
When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that
supports multiple, different protocols or resolution mechanisms, it
is desirable that the protocol used is unambiguous, and that requests
intended for one protocol are not inadv
> On Sep 17, 2016, at 4:08 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> Alain, here's an example, from the abstract:
>
>When an end-user triggers resolution of a name on a system that
>supports multiple, different protocols or resolution mechanisms, it
>is desirable that the protocol used is unambiguou
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Alain Durand
wrote:
>
> The working group now need to decide if they’d rather like a limited and
> concise description of issues surrounding 6761 or if they rather like a
> discussion of the larger issues surrounding special names in general.
>
Exactly right.
