Re: Revised Question 2

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I'm happy with A2 or with H as amended.

   Brian

RJ Atkinson wrote:
> 
>         At the bottom of this note, I've attempted to list all of
> the proposed fixes for the deadlock issue in Section 4 that
> are still being actively proposed.  It is likely that I've made
> a mistake along the way, so this note just attempts to verify
> that I have the correct list of currently proposed fixes.
> 
>         If your preferred fix is not listed below, please post
> a note to the list outlining your proposed fix.  If your
> proposal involves replacing the Section 4 text, please
> include the precise proposed new text for Section 4.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ran
> rja@extremenetworks.com
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Alternatives still being considered:
> 
> (NUL) delete the current Section 4 text and have the document
>         be entirely silent about how the confirming bodies confirm/reject
>         nominees.
> (A2) posted to the list on 21 May 2003, joint from several folks
> (G) posted to the list on 19 May 2003, from Christian Huitema
> (H) from Harald Alvestrand's note of 16 May 2003;
>         I do not know what Harald's proposed new wording is.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.elistx.com/subscribe>