> From: Tony Li <tony...@tony.li>
> I grep'ed for that and came up with things that didn't make sense. I
> suspect that Noel meant "IF You Please".
Nope. Try the top entry in a Google search.
> 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.
The original formulation could be misleading to people who aren't up on the
way IRTF groups work, and assume there is some similarity to the way IETF
groups do. So I would appreciate it if you could make clear what the actual
cirmcumstances are (i.e. that there is not broad support for these
recommendations across the RG), when it comes to writing the report.
> I'm very disappointed that we were unable to make further progress in
> reaching consensus.
I think there are some points in which most people do seem to be in agreement,
e.g. I seem to recall a discussion about how broad the acceptance was of the
need for separation of location and identity as _part_ of the solution.
We've discussed this issue, of which points we could list general agreement
on, before; if I had more energy I'd post the URL of the thread in the
archives.
I don't recall if there were additional suggestions for things on which there
is broad (if not complete) agreement.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
