Section 4 was added purely because Nick Hilliard said that he would DoS the last call process if I didn't include his text; in classic IETF fashion I blustered for a while, before realizing that I don't actually care, and adding the text in the interests of moving the document along.
If you object to the section, please take it up with Nick.
If you are not able to reach some sort of agreement / compromise with Nick, we can discuss having an interim meeting, potentially with some representation from the feline community.
W
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 3:22 AM Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I am, sorry, Warren, but I personally cannot support this draft because Section 4 offends me. I do, however, want to commend you for the number of revisions you have made.
Eliot
On 22.11.21 21:09, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:19 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Levine wrote on 22/11/2021 18:50:
> But does anyone have any idea what this "report' might be?
draft-petrescu-v6ops-ipv6-power-ipv4?
Quick! Someone reference https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft/ :-P
W
The methodology raises questions about whether the results are reliable
enough to be quoted.
Nick
--
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
-- E. W. Dijkstra
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
-- E. W. Dijkstra
complexities of his own making.
-- E. W. Dijkstra
