Re: Revised draft charter for DNSEXT

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

Kevin: Ok. So when do you think this discussion should happen? On each
draft? The most relevant thing you said before is that we should call a
spade a spade. We should not try to dodge oversight by deceptive terms,
or by deceptive practices.  Dishonesty just brings more tedious
oversight, because then one (__evenyone__) has to prove their honesty
and integrity, in addition to proving their proposal is needed,
necessary, and safe.

I look forward to the proposed language for the charter.


On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Kevin Darcy wrote:

> Dean,
> This discussion needs to happen eventually, but I don't think it needs 
> to happen in the context of framing language for a WG Charter. A WG 
> Charter explains WHY the WG exists, and HOW the WG intends to 
> enhance/extend/fix the protocol to which it is devoted. The Charter does 
> *not* need to explain WHAT the protocol is, or what its relative 
> importance is perceived to be in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> So please, leave my name out of this. I'm fully in accord with just 
> dropping the controversial language from the Charter. I don't think it 
> suffers in the slightest from the omission. We can have the larger 
> discussion at some other time and/or in some other context.
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>