> "Alexey" == Alexey Melnikov writes:
Alexey> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>> "Jiankang" == Jiankang YAO writes:
>>>
>>>
Jiankang> If there are many things we must do, we(WGs) normally
Jiankang> prioritize the things. sometimes, the easier one first;
Jiankan
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Jiankang" == Jiankang YAO writes:
Jiankang> If there are many things we must do, we(WGs) normally
Jiankang> prioritize the things. sometimes, the easier one first;
Jiankang> sometimes, the difficult one first.
Sure.
That's fine for the WG to do.
I don
> "Jiankang" == Jiankang YAO writes:
Jiankang> If there are many things we must do, we(WGs) normally
Jiankang> prioritize the things. sometimes, the easier one first;
Jiankang> sometimes, the difficult one first.
Sure.
That's fine for the WG to do.
I don't think it is good to do
> "Peter" == Peter Saint-Andre writes:
Peter> On 5/19/10 12:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've
>> brought up in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph
Peter> I proposed:
Peter>Although the group will se
On 5/19/10 12:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've brought up
> in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph would be a
> significant step backward. I would object to chartering the group with
> that paragraph added without explicitly lis
I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've brought up
in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph would be a
significant step backward. I would object to chartering the group with
that paragraph added without explicitly listing any use cases including
the onse I brought
Hi Mark,
Mark Lentczner wrote:
On May 19, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
[...]
In an email exchange with Marc and Alexey Melnikov last week, I proposed
adding ...
Although the group will seek input from and may provide advice to
"customers" working on other technologies, it
On May 19, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> We're trying to balance two things here: (1) we want to get as much
> input as possible from current and potential customers of stringprep or
> newprep/stringprepbis/whatever, but (2) we want to scope the WG tightly
> enough that it doesn't
Le 10-05-19 09:40, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
On 5/18/10 12:32 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
Le 10-05-18 14:27, Sam Hartman a écrit :
"Marc" == Marc Blanchet writes:
Marc> we had a discussion about the same subject: i.e. should we
Marc> restrict the scope to a specific set of do
Le 10-05-18 14:27, Sam Hartman a écrit :
"Marc" == Marc Blanchet writes:
Marc> we had a discussion about the same subject: i.e. should we
Marc> restrict the scope to a specific set of documents to
Marc> review/update/... or do we keep some provision for other
Marc> docu
we had a discussion about the same subject: i.e. should we restrict the
scope to a specific set of documents to review/update/... or do we keep
some provision for other documents coming in the stream that require
"help" of the newprep. I was arguing for the latter. To me, what you are
talking a
On 5/18/10 12:32 PM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Le 10-05-18 14:27, Sam Hartman a écrit :
>>> "Marc" == Marc Blanchet writes:
>>
>> Marc> we had a discussion about the same subject: i.e. should we
>> Marc> restrict the scope to a specific set of documents to
>> Marc> review/update
> "Marc" == Marc Blanchet writes:
Marc> we had a discussion about the same subject: i.e. should we
Marc> restrict the scope to a specific set of documents to
Marc> review/update/... or do we keep some provision for other
Marc> documents coming in the stream that require "help"
13 matches
Mail list logo
