Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3)

Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com> Sat, 06 February 2010 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <dotzero@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 163BF3A6FA1 for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:13:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OGHRlz97DR3j for <asrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f191.google.com (mail-qy0-f191.google.com [209.85.221.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 468173A70CC for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 6 Feb 2010 15:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so2547879qyk.23 for <asrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:13:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Of0B5UwGlzieyRRH51MsbMAfG3PsNRwt0OgXX95ANkA=; b=jZjopU7T7N14Sgj6IX6n6wT8q3e9lJSGCQ0ZyYHrVwijQcwT7Kj2fTKeGES+X0fr0t Cf8XWrG+i5vuioHI7YuUoCgcmJd5qJZuPBQKaQiHJTSnYFb8amUeFHtjepQf2pNSL2S9 q+U5WKil9wBMWYOpfAvs3X2R8OornHU07E4oE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Fnb1IO8aUMo3rLeXMyWSEuHDGv5gP0mf7xma84uZTWXWTWnbdOJi0FAWWmYi+kRm2O HvBctRy0BMrFT/c2kRZxoWl4C3J7A0fhWXR1nBsps4L1KCJI01NiXnMrVFk4TBqc9Juq mHf8E53I8fa1pZz3MnU5lXxvDz+yRED5sWYtM=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.10.132 with SMTP id p4mr18980qcp.86.1265498038458; Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:13:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B6DEA6E.1070904@dcrocker.net>
References: <4B6C6D35.1050101@nortel.com> <4B6D41E3.8000209@tana.it> <4B6DAD0C.3020109@nortel.com> <4B6DB6D1.5050805@dcrocker.net> <3B7D577A-2E2D-4310-A5BD-C30838F5E7A3@blighty.com> <4B6DEA6E.1070904@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 18:13:58 -0500
Message-ID: <7ae58c221002061513p688b8058nb1f9ed6877a97ee6@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dotzero <dotzero@gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] Consensus Call - submission via posting (was Re: Iteration #3)
X-BeenThere: asrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg@irtf.org>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <asrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/asrg>
List-Post: <mailto:asrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg>, <mailto:asrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:13:07 -0000

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>; wrote:
> Just to be clear:  the purpose of a consensus call is to resolve ambiguity
> about preferences among choices being discussed.
>
> So I listed the choices that I had seen dominating the discussion, rather
> than listing among a full range of theoretical -- albeit possibly quite
> reasonable -- choices.
>
> If there is a consensus that /neither/ of the two listed choices is
> preferred, then a more careful listing and consideration of alternatives
> would make sense.
>
> d/
>
>

I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this discussion with
interest. I lean towards #1.