Re: [domainrep] Updated documents prior to IETF LC

Ah, ambiguity in the interpretation of "John, Pete and I". Salutation to
John, or a list of names that includes John.

Anyway, I was going to suggest "normally-well-behaved" as coming closest
to the intended meaning, but I think "normal-rating" is a good name too.

+1 to this change.

And +1 to sending this and the other docs on to the IESG.

    Tony Hansen

On 7/17/2013 8:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com
> <mailto:dcrocker@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/15/2013 11:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>         John, Pete and I are OK with this compromise (please excuse
>         the XML):
>
>                  <t hangText="normal-rating:"> An indication of what
>         the reputation
>                         provider would normally expect as a rating for
>         the subject.
>                         This allows the client to note that the
>         current rating is
>                         or is not in line with expectations. </t>
>
>         Any objections?
>
>
>
>     John -- since my reading of this thread has you as currently holding
>             the token...
>
>     As soon as you guys finish this negotiation and Murray re-issues
>     the I-D with the new text -- by way of dotting t's and crossing
>     i's -- I can start the formal publication sequence, which begins
>     with the wg agreeing that the doc is done.
>
>
>
> If you're willing to accept it, John and I came to this text over IM,
> and Pete was fine with it.  I can post a new document if you think
> we're agreed enough here to move ahead.  Seems unlikely we'll get
> other responses at this rate, unfortunately.
>
> -MSK
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> domainrep mailing list
> domainrep@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/domainrep