On 26 Mar 2010, at 21:40, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> 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.
I feel your pain? I fixed your post? Noel, you are really not in a position to ask others to 'make clear' or to ruminate on how text written by others may be misleading, when your own emails are so incredibly obscure. Feel free to quote some long-dead country leader I've never heard of at me, or otherwise blame my lack of desire to read your posts on my unwillingness to use Google to try to interpret them. > >> 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. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
