On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:23 AM 12/4/14, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:00 PM, <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That's an ad-hominem argument that has no bearing on the current proposal. > > It's not "ad hominem" to ask someone why they think one thing is different from another. I actually agree with Bob that the abstract to 6346 says something that's not true, and it needs to be changed (I hadn't thought about it before he pointed out the problem). I asked Bob why he didn't object to the other proposals because I wanted to know. I doubt he was unaware of them. > It would help me understand your question (as a 3rd party to the conversation) if you would say more about why you think an objection to the tex Bob quoted from RFC 6346 would be related to objections to MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6. - Ralph