Re: CfV: Packet <-> Elements

["John W. Noerenberg" <jwn2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 3:11 PM +0000 10/27/97, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>* John  W. Noerenberg wrote:
>>There are more substantive issues to address than whether we continue with
>>"packets" or adopt some new term for protocol data units.
>
>Yes, so let's vote and forget the discussion. Making a ballot is the fastest
>way to switch to a new topic. A ballot can be used for every non important
>issuse. I'm not interested in the result. I can live with both results.

Lutz, let me speak more plainly.  The chair will not hear further
discussion on this issue.  The chair did not call for a straw poll.  There
will be no vote on this.

I have heard no compelling reason to change the term.  We will continue to
use "packets" to refer to PGP protocol data units.

Continuing in this vein is counterproductive.


john  w noerenberg, ii
jwn2@xxxxxxxxxxxx
pager: jwn2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  "The great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps
   with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."
  -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self Reliance", 1841
  --------------------------------------------------------------------