[dns-wg] revised text for NTIA response - v4
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] revised text for NTIA response - v4
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] revised text for NTIA response - v4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Tue Nov 4 01:10:44 CET 2008
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:56:16PM +0000, Jim Reid wrote: > On Nov 3, 2008, at 16:22, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote: > > By all means Bill express that as your view when you respond to the > NTIA consultation. However please don't open up that can of worms > here. just providing a bit of backing material on some of the unstated assumptions in the RIEP WG response. I have no intention to debate the relative merits over email. (But if I can have a quiet chat over there in the bar w/ you...) > > anyway, point 10 woudl be clearer if the reason fo rthe must was > > made explicit. > > Noted. Can we agree to leave the matter there? I'll add some > explanatory text for the next version. i think that will help make the point. (as a native english speaker :) --bill
- Previous message (by thread): [dns-wg] revised text for NTIA response - v4
- Next message (by thread): [dns-wg] revised text for NTIA response - v4
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ dns-wg Archives ]