Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is not a huge problem. It's just something that I saw that I
> thought could be improved, and then I guess Warren chimed in on it. I
> don't think it's reasonable to say "8499 says this, and even though
> that's somewhat confusing, it's more important to repeat what 8499 says
> than to say it more clearly." I am not sure Michael intended to say
> that, but that's how I read his response.
1. We will no longer copy the text.
2. Yeah, sometimes it is more important to build consensus around terminology
than so that we have common mindshare.
Some non-trivial work went into 8499 (not involving me though). It's very
unfortunate if the terminology turns out to be useless.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
