[Ietf-not43] -02 requirements draft

[Andrew Newton]

So...
 1) You raise an issue.
 2) Conversation takes place
 3) Language is agreed upon
 4) You never objected to it

Given that you seem to be unwilling to work with us, then perhaps you sho=
uld=20
explain why it will not work.  And allegations of absurdity and allusions=
 to=20
black magic are generalizations.

-andy

On Tuesday 05 November 2002 07:49 pm, Rick Wesson wrote:
> My concern that is that requirements such as "turn carbon into gold" ar=
e
> not valid unless there is some real capability out there that can prefo=
rm
> such feats. I believe that unless somone can demonstrate how this can b=
e
> accomplished the requirement is absurd and should be removed.
>
>
> -rick
>
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > Rick,
> > =09I understand your concern.  We need to be careful, though,
> > that we deal with concerns about the requirements in the requirements=
,
> > rather than by demonstrating that one or another candidate solution
> > doesn't have a particular problem.  To avoid this, I'd rather not go
> > with a "show how this works" resolution to your concern.
> > =09Would you be willing to work with Andy on language for 3.2.3,
> > that includes something related to the question of equity that you
> > raise?  That allows the working group to decide if there is general
> > agreement on the amended requirement, whether it should stay as is,
> > or be wholly removed.
> > =09=09=09regards,
> > =09=09=09=09Ted Hardie
> >
> > > I still have a major problem with 3.2.3 Domain Registrant Search. I
> > > can't see how searching is going to be distributed in a fair and
> > > equitable way and ould like the requirement removed until we have s=
ome
> > > discussion that shows that there is a technicaly feasable way of do=
ing
> > > this.
> > >
> > > If noone can stand up and show how everyone in the mesh isn't effec=
ted
> > > by every registrant search then we either need to drop the requirem=
ent
> > > or have a way to recover costs of preforming these queries.
> > >
> > > -rick
> > >
> > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > > > Hello Folks,
> > > > =09Andy has sent in a -02 version of the requirements draft to
> > > > address the wordsmithing issues brought up during last call.  I
> > > > believe that none of those changes were substantive, so I plan to
> > > > send it up to the IESG as a candidate for Informational RFC.  If =
you
> > > > believe that the changes require further discussion on the list,
> > > > please let me (and the list) know as soon as possible.
> > > > =09=09=09regards,
> > > > =09=09=09=09Ted Hardie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ietf-not43 mailing list
> > > > Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> > > > http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-not43 mailing list
> Ietf-not43@lists.verisignlabs.com
> http://lists.verisignlabs.com/mailman/listinfo/ietf-not43