On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Robin Whittle wrote:
I understand the current draft text is:Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6.I oppose this because it would allow the RRG not to recommend a solution for IPv4. ... I would support text such as: ...
Um. 433 words instead of 28? In order to reach rough consensus on the direction the group is taking? Do you, perhaps, get paid by word? :-)
More seriously, while I understand some of your concerns (and disagree with others), I think we need to plant a stake in the ground to demonstrate at least some progress has been made. The statement Tony provided is pretty watered down with respect to saying much of anything, but it at least points to a prioritization and one that I'm comfortable with. As such, I'm OK with the wording as is (although I might prefer "Our recommendation must be ..." since it "must" appears in the second sentence).
Regards, -drc -- to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg