On 21-Mar-06, at 12:37 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Cautions:
Lest anyone find themselves wondering, what follows is
intended to move
towards explicit and precise language that we can all agree on.
To do that, I had to question quite a bit of your text.
The good news is that your text raised a lot of questions that
I think are
basic and resolving them is likely to be extremely useful.
Lots of really good questions Dave. Thanks!
Your extended example are quite good at making the usage of DIX
concrete. (A minor question is how much group consensus there is
that these
examples represent the range of DIX usage; I suspect the issue is
not whether
the examples are "wrong" but whether they define the scope of DIX
usage
sufficiently.)
I think the more terse language in the lists, at the beginning
of your
message, perhaps assume too much a priori understanding/context.
Therefore,
much of what I ask, in the following, is really intended to find
language for
these lists that will have more common, immediate and precise
meaning to a wide
range of readers.
Indeed. I should have perhaps defined terms up front and taken more
time to edit into a clearer form.
The good news is that my presentation materials for this morning's BOF
are more focused and much clearer, especially wrt goals and benefits.
I hope that they'll answer many of your questions.
(By the way, the cost of your sending such a lengthy and thoughtful
note is a
lengthy response. Whether it, too, is thoughtful, well... it tries
to be.)
I'll reply more completely after the BOF.
Thanks
John
_______________________________________________
dix mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
