Re: [idn] Update Charter revision 2

[David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

James Seng/Personal wrote (~4 days ago):
> > > > have not been adequately addressed (in fact none of my technical
> > > > points were addressed at all).
> > >
> > > Your comments comes after the doc have been moved forward for IESG.
> > > Any changes to it will have to wait after their review.
> >
> > The WG should discuss the comments and they can even decide how they'd
> > like to modify the document. But it is best to not issue an updated
> > I-D until the AD review comments are back.
> 
> Thanks Erik. Yes, that is what I mean.
> 
> Discussion of the points raised by David can and should continue.

Good, I'm glad we agree. Since you're a coauthor of the requirements
draft, is it too much to ask that you actually make some substantive
comments, rather than just expressing a vague notion that it might be
a good idea to do so?

Please reply to my previous post suggesting the changes, saying to what
extent you agree or disagree with each of them.

- -- 
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBO9y6+DkCAxeYt5gVAQHHcgf/bePQ/TlVmAUqTjFz8DyAFcUN2kzijvJv
bz0bAX92vYunZo+bLWgzQBTUkEHKC7zdoe6LUOvWHAQcAKwnn0RR3Jn6Vl2eXbMH
gsveKzntcXF9/6v9CjgUDW/i/UeuG7G5Mqr9v8c+tk6UkxfKrV4Ql57WHreC766K
J5a2eAEBJwfDES4k2zAVPk67o8xZUnErcmVS6sv0aJpGED0Cy4ITRk2eIIw1x9Ym
aucRZGzvLP6cTvr7Bhjd7NTbb5ptPMTBgj8iybvTAdhhcMzGKsjcw3nbz0uXHSKu
pWxvjxFPbsf56UIIu7ARWjJ3JjHXVCWuYAwZvjPql9a0lRk9vNGstQ==
=0kMs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----