Re: One last nit

[Claudio Topolcic <[e-mail]>]

> So, lets not wait for the
> wordsmiths to finish before advancing the technical work.

Joel,
	Don't misinterpret what I said to imply that I want to hold
anything up. Yes, I expect that Vint's agreement does not fulfill the
letter of 1602. And no, I am in no way implying that anyone should
screw around with Vint's agreement.
	But 1602 has words like "warrant" and "implement and operate"
that Vint's doesn't. Now 1602 may be broken, or these differences may
be irrelevant. I am less comfortable about forming an opinion on this
than you are without some expert advice. The most efficient thing to
do is for the one who has done the first implementation of the
protocol to share his/her experience. That is, saying something like
"we can't realistically expect anyone to 'warrant' anything" and
"'implement and operate' are covered by 'perform'" and the like. 
	This is what I suggested. I assume that this is what Scott's
request will result in. No delay. No wordsmithing. No further
negotiations. 
	Claudio