RE: Draft 2: Summary of discussion on draft-katz-yeung

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Not really my area of expertise. But I did read through your
arguments and explanations, and they seem fine to me.

My 0,02 (Euro)cents ... I believe we actually have such a coin.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]
> Sent: maandag 6 januari 2003 20:36
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Fwd: Draft 2: Summary of discussion on draft-katz-yeung
> 
> 
> I'd like to send this out soon. I'll wait and see
> if anyone has comments till around 10pm tonight and
> will send it out.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Alex
> 
> This is a forwarded message
> From: Alex Zinin <alex.zinin@alcatel.com>
> To: iesg@ietf.org
> Cc: 
> Date: Friday, January 03, 2003, 5:11:19 PM
> Subject: Draft 2: Summary of discussion on draft-katz-yeung
> 
> ===8<==============Original message text===============
> 
> OK, here's the second version. Note that as agreed on the call, the
> message is not speaking on behalf of the IESG, but rather myself as a
> co-AD.
> 
> One question: in this discussion, Suresh is essentially questioning
> correctness of what the WG has agreed on. Instead of saying "Suresh is
> alone, and it's not enough to override the WG's consensus", I use the
> wording of no consensus to support Suresh'es statement, plus state
> that no show-stoppers have been found. Would this be fine, or should I
> use a different approach?
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> ===8<===========End of original message text===========
> 
>