I would have to disagree slightly.
I do not believe that you can represent this as the recommendation of
the Research Group.
The document can be published as an RRG RFC with a recommendation from
the chairs of the RRG. But the conclusion (whether I agree or disagree
with it) is not the recommendation of the RRG.
Yours,
Joel
Tony Li wrote:
the recommendation of the [chairs of the] RRG
IFYP.
?
I grep'ed for that and came up with things that didn't make sense. I
suspect that Noel meant "IF You Please".
While there is no argument that this is not a consensus based
recommendation, IRTF outcomes are not required to be consensus based. So
while Noel's amended version is correct, the original is also correct.
Just so we're all clear, I'm very disappointed that we were unable to make
further progress in reaching consensus.
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
