Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consolidated Draft of Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 5 Jun 2013, at 10:14, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> For the most part, Avri’s suggestions seem pretty reasonable to me. I don’t 
> understand AD72.  Also, I think that AD86 was covered elsewhere but it is 
> okay to mention it again. 


thanks.

the problem with 72 is that my comment is garbled.

I am recommending replacing

unacceptably vulnerable
 
with

are as vulnerable

- the point is that they should be included because they claim they are 
similarly vulnerable to other names that have received special considerations.  
We have not defined vulnerability nor a mark of what is acceptable and what 
isn't acceptable.