[rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft

stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie (Stephen Farrell) Fri, 28 February 2020 02:12 UTC

From: stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie (Stephen Farrell)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 02:12:39 +0000
Subject: [rfc-i] Feedback solicited: Update tags draft
In-Reply-To: <098f5213-f1f6-3466-6c47-979016f558cf@alum.mit.edu>
References: <447718E1-D2EF-41B1-94DD-AB121EAA79BB@gmail.com> <179BB23D-825A-4177-B656-1B396903C7D8@gmail.com> <1ed2a16b-3b0f-4783-4db6-bc354582c435@cs.tcd.ie> <098f5213-f1f6-3466-6c47-979016f558cf@alum.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <cbe51291-5b7e-c170-4dfd-5d3ba587af4d@cs.tcd.ie>

Hi Paul,

On 27/02/2020 20:44, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 
> I don't understand your logic here.

Robert said it better (unsurprisingly - he tends to
do that;-)...

On 27/02/2020 21:30, Robert Sparks wrote:
> 
> I disagree that you can conclude that decision without some actual 
> runtime experience.
ISTM that fixing this fuzzy thing likely requires yet
more fuzziness, at least for a while, or else the
fuzzy-fix is relatively likely to fail.

Cheers,
S.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 10715 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200228/a3f59522/attachment-0001.skr>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200228/a3f59522/attachment-0001.asc>