[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- To: Frank Quick <fquick@qualcomm.com>
- Subject: Re: Comments on draft-carroll-dynmobileip-cdma-04.txt
- From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
- Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 21:20:37 +0200
- Cc: "Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>, Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com>, gwz@cisco.com, Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "W. Mark Townsley" <townsley@cisco.com>, "Carroll, Christopher P." <Ccarroll@ropesgray.com>, gerry.flynn@verizonwireless.com, radiusext@ops.ietf.org
- In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20050304104900.026f58e0@unixmail.qualcomm.com>
- References: <5.2.0.9.2.20050304104900.026f58e0@unixmail.qualcomm.com>
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
Frank Quick wrote:
And I think "is not consistent with" is entirely accurate, if perhaps
less blunt. If the purpose is to inform the reader, rather than to
punish the authors, then the less blunt wording should be sufficient.
I'd also accept "not compliant with" if you prefer.
I have some sympathy for this. Its excellent if we agree about the
technical part of the note (or will come to an agreement at least).
But the note should not "punish the authors". Lets use less
emotionally charged words, "violate" may not be very good. But
"is not consistent" doesn't quite do the job for me either. Perhaps
"not compliant with RFC XXXX" is the right, objective expression
here.
--Jari
--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>