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

Boroondas Gupte <sllists@boroon.dasgupta.ch> Fri, 01 April 2011 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sllists@boroon.dasgupta.ch>
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 55ABB3A6870 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611]
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 lTrEXmx6RzOH for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from datendelphin.net (india288.server4you.de [85.25.150.202]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18573A686E for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 07:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.30.132.88] (guest-docking-nat-1-087.ethz.ch [82.130.71.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by datendelphin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BC652E047 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:30:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4D95E0E9.9000701@boroon.dasgupta.ch>
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:27:53 +0200
From: Boroondas Gupte <sllists@boroon.dasgupta.ch>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110313 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vwrap@ietf.org
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch> <20110401154509.5ce33fe0@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20110401154509.5ce33fe0@hikaru.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 14:26:15 -0000

On 04/01/2011 03:45 PM, Carlo Wood 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
I probably had some misconception of what this is about. You are talking
about what can go into the protocol at all? Or how different (released,
not just proposed) versions of the protocol might differ?

In my first answer, I assumed the latter. If it's the former, I think I
can agree even to the "sufficient" notion.

Cheers,
Boroondas