IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-00.txt

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Wed, 11 May 2011 14:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C13E0728 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Eku5njjCf8n for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB61E0704 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 07:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shinkuro.com (external.shinkuro.com [66.92.164.104]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71E671ECB41D for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 May 2011 14:25:24 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 10:25:17 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110511142516.GA4578@crankycanuck.ca>
References: <20110506220130.29448.74168.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DC77648.1040903@gmail.com> <8678291D-9406-4BCB-AA41-E0F131B4E38F@vpnc.org> <4DC9499C.1060409@gmail.com> <BANLkTimc-UoTfTs3+Jk5OC0koNK9u243-A@mail.gmail.com> <4DCA6BF1.4010702@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DCA6BF1.4010702@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 14:25:26 -0000

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 01:58:57PM +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> >pushing on this point and leave it alone.  [The only change I can see
> >supporting is inserting "verbal" before "way".  But there are
> >non-verbal languages, as well.]
> Adding "verbal" seems fine to me; this will clarify the definition a bit.

I am strongly opposed to the qualification "verbal".  It's flat out wrong.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email