I'm not arguing for laxness, quite the contrary.
I can be quite a nit-pick. But I'm also arguing that
non-obvious and non-explained statements are unclear
and unhelpful. Even when asked for an explanation
at the time, none was offered, which was also unhelpful.
Afer several weeks we were offered an apples and oranges
explanation. Untechnical and unhelpful. Plus an obscure
reference to SRV records. Technical, but unhelpful due
to the obscurity (maybe not for you, but for me). If you
want to make a point, make it clear. If asked for an
explanation anyway, please try to offer one, a clearer one.
Kind regards
/kent k
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark.Andrews@nominum.com [mailto:Mark.Andrews@nominum.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 2:06 AM
> To: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [idn] Re: names of various sorts
>
>
>
> Kent, what point is there in going on about confusion
> levels. Lets get on with the main issues here.
>
> As for those of you arguing that we should be lax in
> terminology. This is a technical working group and there
> is no way consensus can be reached if we are lax in the
> use of terminology.
>
> Mark
> --
> Mark Andrews, Nominum Inc. / Internet Software Consortium
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET:
> Mark.Andrews@nominum.com
>