RE: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models (conclusion?)

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

1. my count is 6 to 3.
2. a majority, yes, but a thin margin and small sample on which to base this decision...

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:21 PM
To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models (conclusion?)

For the record, I think it best to specify a default model.

However, assuming Sanjay's second vote masks his first, and including my 
vote above, that would leave us with 6 folks who think we should pull the 
requirement for a default, specified model, and 2 who think we should keep 
it.  That gives us a voter turn-out on our list of less than 1% ;-(

So we'll update the requirements document (currently with IESG) to reflect 
no need for a required default BC model.

Jim