Re: What we disagree on RE: TE Requirements Draft-ELSP

[Nabil Seddigh <nseddigh@tropicnetworks.com>]

Francois,

The reference to religion was not intended to be directed to you
specifically nor was it meant to be derogatory. No accusations
intended. Apologies if it came out that way.

Those in favour of including an option for (iiia) believe it 
has a number of benefits. Those in favour of excluding (iiia)
believe those benefits are not important and that it causes 
certain other problems - problems the those in favour of
the option think are not important.

I guess the elephant has many sides and people are seeing different
sides.

Best,
Nabil



> ..... I am simultaneously :
>          - accused of being religious because I am too closed to adding
> options [ie arguing against (iiia) because of its protocol extensions]
>          - accused of being religious because I am too open to adding
> options [ie arguing that it is OK to allow option (ii) since it doesn't
> require any protocol extension].
> Funny world.
> 
> If I understand correctly, this is where we stand :
>          - Nabil is saying, let's allow (ii) and (iiia)
>          - Shai is saying, let's not allow (ii) nor (iiia)
>          - Francois is saying, let's allow (ii) but not (iiia).
> At least, my religion is more middle-of-the-ground than either of yours. '^)