Re: [Autoconf] Procedure

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[e-mail]>]

Sorry Thomas, I don't get this joke, especially if coming from one WG
chair.

I'm talking about serious things here.

Thanks,

Carlos

On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 05:31 -0700, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
> Carlos,
> 
> Ok, let's try this, then, to see how much of a hurry we're really in:
> 
>   o Jari, can we have our milestone moved another 5 years
>     into the future?
> 
> ;)
> 
> Thomas
> 
> On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:26 am, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> 
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 05:15 -0700, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, October 28, 2009 4:57 am, Jari Arkko wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Alex,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> YEs I believe it is unreasonable to adopt that single document when
> >>>> a competitor document exists and which is technically more inline
> >>>> with what I think.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Also, duly note that the draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model
> >> document did not exist and the chairs (and the WG) were not made aware
> >> that it was under development, at the time of approval of
> >> draft-ietf-autoconf-...
> >
> > True, we have been working on this since last IETF meeting. Had we (the
> > authors) known that we were about to adopt a document as WG draft, we would
> > have submitted it earlier.
> >
> > As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I think it'd be better to have a
> > discussion on the content of both drafts before really deciding on which
> > one should be taken as baseline, but this is my personal opinion. Sorry,
> > but after 5 years working on this (and I've been contributing to the WG
> > since the very beginning) I don't buy the "we are in a hurry" argument
> > :-). Discussing both drafts in Hiroshima would not harm and may
> > be help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Your opinion is, however, noted.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thomas
> >>
> >>
> >>> I am aware that you wanted to see the other document adopted instead.
> >>>  But note that I said "given the opinions in the group" and not any
> >>> individual's opinion. We all know that there is no unanimous agreement
> >>>  about this, but I was curious if someone thought that the chairs had
> >>>  somehow missed that a large part of the group disagreed with the
> >>> idea of adopting the DT document.
> >>>
> >>> Jari
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Autoconf mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Autoconf mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
> >>
> > --
> > Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
> > GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> >
> 
> 
-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67