From: Peter Alfredsen (peteralf@fabel.dk)
Date: Mon Mar 27 2000 - 11:50:56 CST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 09:05:46 GMT, chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles
Lindsey) wrote:
>In <yl1z50kl9o.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> Russ Allbery
><rra@stanford.edu> writes:
>
>
>>I think I've changed my mind. Let's just go with OUGHT for the
>>time being and get the draft out the door and if anyone tackles the
>>problem of later revisions they can revisit.
>
>Right, that makes it 10:7 in favour of OUGHT. Still not quite
>consensus.
<AOL> Me too </AOL>
Even though I am not a regular participator in this discussion, I see
the need for OUGHT as opposed to splitting up the RFC in a "Good
housekeeping" and a successor to RFC 1036(bis). The use of OUGHT will
carry weight, as it is a "standardized" statement, telling all the
newsadmins out there, that this is what you SHOULD do to increase the
chance of your systems interacting with others, but you MAY disregard
it, if you develop another solution, that does not hurt the
infrastructure of USENET.
ObVote
I didn't participate, because I do not feel, that I've participated
enough, to vote the one way or the other - the power of the one, who
speak - but here's my say on the matter, anyway.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQEVAwUBON+RaHAHz0wG4hsxAQFXqwf+MV40arpes3+IE5hGQa37N3ECdNRFrQ66
18d4LyIks3tb6xSgiT83UdVktjtw4Ht9wE+dtTcJ+ZTdcCG9tXKAVfp08ZXOPuKy
g+A2DwaDRGUyecCNIcMtyLIZBMzSZf4MNIR6lWjVV5LzlFWKlykZ6C9mNTWcEgB4
7Z9Hx6GcOReUInSVMXYsN4HmtOg0jK0Vm2+4eAJvdNPBIdmfis5ymWuoNeBpWnL/
E9MG3hCTnTafQ9KocUkiUz8TApKLcNpL6JkL4X+x6gfz3WAMudNjOVXGJFkcXyqM
zBqkUhX+qo1U1CpMj/PP6LL44kpwwiguz3gjpJTQbyDSQngdQmPJLA==
=Lzxp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- Peter Alfredsen (peteralf@fabel.dk)|PGP-key ID: 0x06E21B31 It's not ROT-13. It's Danish.. - Unknown "... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it." - Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)