Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Mon, 14 April 1997 13:13 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa26913; 14 Apr 97 9:13 EDT
Received: from services.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09580; 14 Apr 97 9:13 EDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA18563 for uri-out; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA18558 for <uri@services.bunyip.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:21:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tyholt.uninett.no by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA02752 (mail destined for uri@services.bunyip.com); Mon, 14 Apr 97 08:21:51 -0400
Received: from munken.uninett.no (munken.uninett.no [129.241.131.10]) by tyholt.uninett.no (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA16771; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:21:45 +0200 (METDST)
X-Authentication-Warning: tyholt.uninett.no: Host munken.uninett.no [129.241.131.10] didn't use HELO protocol
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>
Cc: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: revised "generic syntax" internet draft
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:52:34 PDT." <9704111452.aa29903@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==!Exmh_373186628P"; micalg="pgp-md5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:22:38 +0200
Message-Id: <15116.861020558@munken.uninett.no>
Sender: owner-uri@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

Roy, others:

It is by now quite plain that Roy Fielding and Martin Duerst do
not agree on what the consensus of the group is.

That is no excuse for imputing dishonesty on the other person's part.

In order to have rational debate, we *have* to assume that the other
person is honest, even when he's mistaken, or we can't work.

WRT judging consensus on the issue involved: I detect a much more
positive approach in recent messages in this group, actually looking at
what happens in various situations.
If we are able to resolve it in this way, that is very good; if not,
we might have to call for a face-to-face meeting in Munich in order to
have a better understanding of consensus (if any) on the issue.
We have a long tradition of accepting rough consensus, but only if we're
fairly certain what that consensus is.

                           Harald T. Alvestrand