Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Fri, 01 April 2011 13:43 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B66283A67FC for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 791SfcGAKFMK for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep16.mx.upcmail.net (fep16.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F533A67FA for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge02.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep16-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20110401134510.TNVC9043.viefep16-int.chello.at@edge02.upcmail.net> for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:45:10 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge02.upcmail.net with edge id SDl91g00c0FlQed02DlAhM; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:45:10 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1Q5eez-00059Y-2W for vwrap@ietf.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 15:45:09 +0200
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 15:45:09 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110401154509.5ce33fe0@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch>
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=vUpxTctd+kpWCBtSXXIkt5ll4Z8E5Qu9nLREXC/hfIo= c=1 sm=0 a=GIqV-yxGZKkA:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=fg5VQgl67aBte82kfrkA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:43:32 -0000

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:29:56 +0200
Boroondas Gupte <sllists@boroon.dasgupta.ch> wrote:

I meant it to be "sufficient".
If both statements are satisfied then it would be
completely weird and suspicious if anyone would go
against the proposal.

If not both statements are satisfied, or when
it's not clear, then that does not mean that X
shouldn't be part of the protocol, but then more
discussion is necessary.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>