Subject: Making discussion easier...

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:41:01 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

Thanks Havard for reminding us.  Sometimes we forget to tail down the
responses to be readable.  Let's try to remember these to make the
discussion more useful.  My personal favourites are:
 - don't quote a lot, and avoid dozens of levels of recursive quoting, and
 - change the Subject title as appropriate

Pekka
 writing as co-chair

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 10:54:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: Havard Eidnes <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
     [email-masked]
Subject: Re: 3GPP and 'not touching a running system'

Hi, guys,

please allow myself to supply a remark on the style of the text in
this e-mail discussion: it really would make it so much easier for
those of us trying to follow the discussion from the sidelines if a
few simple and commonly accepted rules were adhered to with regard
to quoting of material:

1) please cut down on the included comments to narrow down to just
   what you are commenting on.  Adding 5 lines of your own text to 100
   lines of (recursively) included comments makes it unneccessarily
   hard to find the 5 new lines, especially in combination with
   violations of rule number 2 below.

2) it would make it much easier to follow the discussion if the
   commonly accepted quoting practice of "indent each line with '> '"
   was adhered to.  The alternative makes it Really Difficult to see
   who said what, as in

> This has nothing to do with 3GPP (except that it's done on top of v4
> 3GPP network), right?  The UE doesn't know anything of v6, and the 3GPP
> network doesn't know anything of v6.  The 3GPP operator is just acting
> as an IPv4 ISP, offering tunneled v6 service for folks using its private
> v4 addresses?
>
> => yes. But the operator has to place the tunnel server in its Gi
> backbone because he is generally using private IPv4 address space and
> the user cannot use a tunnel server in the Internet therefore.
> Furthermore, the UE will probably soon also implement tunneling
> mechanism (we are asking SonyEricsson and Nokia to implement ISATAP in
> their handsets).

   Inserting an inconspicious "=>" at the front of a possibly
   multi-paragraph reply (just a single paragraph here, I'll
   concede) doesn't quite provide the same visual cues that the
   "indent every included line with '> '" does.

   And the message I'm replying to was signed:

> Regards
> Andreas
>
>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Now, who wrote this?!? ;-)

I now return you to the discussion at hand.

Regards,

- Håvard