Re: deadlock problem

[Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com>]

Repeat after me... Ran is not Mike... Ran is not Mike... :-)  Referenced 
email was Ran's....

Mike



At 18:45 5/12/2003, Avri Doria wrote:
> From the chair:
>
> The last time this issue was discussed I felt there
> was no consensus and therefore things were left as written
> in RFC2727.
>
> To achieve consensus this time around, I ask that a lot of
> people on this list please speak up on the issue and see if we
> can't mostly convince ourselves that one option is really the
> right option.
>
> You have been given lots of options from:
> - doing nothing and leaving it as written in RFC2727 and 2727bis,
> - to making one of the changes {A-D} Mike suggests,
> - to removing the clause altogether and leaving it up to
>   the CB to determine it own processes as Harald suggests.
>
>
> Since I would like to take this doc to WG last call as soon
> as possible, please respond in the next couple of days.  It
> would be really nice to hear from a large cross-section of
> the list participants instead of the  same few who always
> step-up and contribute.  I plan to try and determine the
> state of consensus by the end of the week.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> a.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>