> From: bert hubert [mailto:bert.hubert@netherlabs.nl]=20


> On Tue, Dec 05, 2006 at 11:01:05PM +0000, Alex Bligh wrote:
>=20
> > Noone *has* to upgrade anything. If people don't want to upgrade,=20
> > that's up to them. And I thought your argument (now) was=20

> that it was=20
> > not the protocol that was unstable, but various implementations=20
> > thereof through the complexity of the protocol - in which case they=20
> > will chose the stable implementations instead.

>=20
> I was in this case only referring to Phillip Hallam-Baker's=20
> statement that stability was not a necessary condition for=20
> deployment - which statement in my not so humble opinion=20
> shows a large "reality gap".


Don't misreprsent me.

You said that it was the number 1 criteria. I called bull**** on that =
claim.

I did not say that it was not a criteria I said that it was not the =
number 1 criteria. I don't think it even comes in the top 5.

And regardless I don't think the group can deliver on it. Not when =
people have been ignoring critical functionality.



--
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: