[rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Stephen Farrell stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Wed Mar 25 18:07:03 PDT 2020


On 26/03/2020 01:02, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2020, at 11:56 am, Stephen Farrell
>> <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> But, if that were worth discussing, it'd challenge a very
>> fundamental tenet of the RFC series, and would surely therefore be
>> worth at least it's own thread where you or someone would collate
>> and present your evidence in some detail?
> Because I have limited time to devote to this, 

Very much understand that!

> and it's just an idea.

Sorry, I interpreted "further evidence" as indicating
you'd been more actively collating that kind of thing.
If not, that's fine, my misinterpretation.

> If you don't like it, fine, but don't discard it because I don't meet
> your arbitrary bar for how to engage.

Discard and arbitrary are slightly negative terms, but
anyway, I wasn't saying you were wrong, I was only
doubting you were right:-)


> Thanks,
> -- Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 10715 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200326/73daf745/attachment.skr>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20200326/73daf745/attachment.asc>

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list