Michael StJohns wrote:
>> I'm less sure that I agree with the subsequent view that we can't
>> adopt this item until we have assurance; I'd say that asking for the
>> issue to be addressed as part of the adoption process is reasonable,
>> and objecting at WGLC if it has not been a
On 11/12/2016 5:11 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
I realize that this thread is months old: I haven't seen any newer
conversation, so I'll continue anyway.
I would concur with MSJ's view that having an informational draft might be a
way to let this work go forward, but I suggest instead the right
see inline as well.
In the summary, it was unclear if I was against the symmetric method or not.
I will admit that I'm sitting on the fence here. I would prefer not to have
a standardized symmetric method.
My preference would be to start running code that shows the price/performance
of asymmetr
