Re: [rrg] Analysis of name-based sockets (with attachment)

Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> Sat, 16 January 2010 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tony.li@tony.li>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0613A68A8 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:33:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.188
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.188 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.411, 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 yl1XVvhJwHmh for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6475C3A6819 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:33:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta23.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.90]) by qmta09.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WHf51d0081wfjNsA9JZkJi; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:33:44 +0000
Received: from [192.168.0.110] ([24.6.155.154]) by omta23.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id WJZi1d00V3L8a8Q8jJZiHj; Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:33:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4B520684.3000801@tony.li>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:33:40 -0800
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>
References: <1263565713.3715.31.camel@bit> <4B516AF4.7040807@tony.li> <4B5173F0.2010100@firstpr.com.au> <4B51752E.6060207@tony.li> <1263629903.3110.1.camel@bit> <4B5178DD.3060201@firstpr.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <4B5178DD.3060201@firstpr.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Routing Research Group Mailing List <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Analysis of name-based sockets (with attachment)
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 18:33:48 -0000

Robin Whittle wrote:
> Hi Tony and Javier,
> 
> Thanks for your replies.
> 
> My understanding is that one or more people can write a critique and
> post it to the list.  Then other people can suggest improvements,
> which the original author(s) may or may not incorporate to the
> satisfaction of the second person.
> 
> Second and subsequent individuals or groups can contribute
> alternative critiques by posting them to the list - and Lixia and
> Tony will choose one of them.
> 
> I think this would be a good approach.  In that case, I think that
> whenever anyone posts a critique to the list, that it should not be
> immediately "incorporated".
> 
>   - Robin
> 
> 

Hi Robin,

Thank you for your comment.  However, in the interests of getting a 
draft out for subsequent steps promptly and not leaving all of the 
editorial work to a giant unsatisfiable lump at the deadline, we will be 
serializing the work.  We have no objections to adding updated 
critiques, if and when those become available or choosing an alternate 
critique if one is presented.

In other words, "incorporated" is not necessarily a final state.

Regards,
Tony