>> 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.
I get "I Feel Your Pain".
>> 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.
Fair, wilco.
>> 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.
In particular, our goal was to reach consensus on an architecture.
Tony
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
