On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote: > Randy, > > Nosey, aren't we? :-) Nah, I was interested in technical objections, not family history. [snippage] > ASCII isn't good enough for me, but PDF is useful where the > problem is really bad. Between them (counting PS as a variation > of PDF - especially since I have to convert PS to PDF to read it) > they are what there is. > > My point in making a terse response was that all that was > asked for was objections. Sometimes, reasons are neither asked > for nor needed. and sometimes they are... > I suspect that - now that you know the reasons - you might > agree that this was one of those times... Yes. > -- > Eric > > --> -----Original Message----- > --> From: Randy.Dunlap [mailto:rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > --> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 1:21 PM > --> To: Gray, Eric > --> Cc: 'Sandy Wills'; Ken Raeburn; IETF General Discussion Mailing List > --> Subject: RE: objection to proposed change to "consensus" > --> > --> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Gray, Eric wrote: > --> > --> > --> "I think we have reached substantial agreement on > --> the following > --> > --> statement: ASCII text was good enough for my > --> Grandfather, and it's > --> > --> going to be good enough for my grandchildren. Please > --> reply to this > --> > --> CfC if you object." > --> > --> IMO an objection should be required to also have an explanation. > --> > --> > I object. > --> > --> Why? to which parts? the grandfather/grandchildren? -- ~Randy _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf