Request for input and participation (fwd)

[Andrew Sullivan]

Dear colleagues,

I'm unsure how exactly a message asking people to participate in
ensuring that requirements are in fact correct can be interpreted as
our being "stumped"; but if people want to paint me as unusually
obtuse or otherwise idiotic, I don't particularly care, as long as we
get the work done that needs doing.  Since Mr Anderson has so kindly
brought everyone's attention to this (again), I want to emphasise the
invitation in the note he forwarded.  I'm also speaking to the APPAREA
meeting this morning, to urge participation here.

People have said they want different "names" to "work the same" on the
Internet.  We are trying to make sure we understand exactly what
people think they're asking for.  I'd like to think that's a good
idea, but maybe it's better to write protocols without making sure you
really understand what people want from your protocol.

Best regards,

A

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:31:11AM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> FYI: IDNA Stumps DNSEXT Chairs
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:03:11 -0500
> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com>
> To: ietf at ietf.org
> Subject: Request for input and participation

[&c.]

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.