From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87FFE21F829; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:37:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1441715862; bh=MAQheZUWxnAoFD/6zEvB87mWKwhM/Ax05EuQ+jnwoNE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Z1bMRHcd7aj+aBZ3N6vYTHhrY3Ao9cLepcxpBet18BHv/q0NDPtbt6bWJeeTH24F2 GutnO37rcWtx/hMS9HkJZkJRqhHEK5FdR4WpS1mGCEuVGFAe0XhHBa+cpKv2NHEEP4 vkabIgqn3ycCj/+nRmGKpv4jeKjI5vaqYl0s+Nt4= Sender: toke@toke.dk Received: by alrua-kau.kau.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AB362C40204; Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:37:41 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Toke_H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= To: Dave Taht References: Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:37:41 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Dave Taht's message of "Tue, 8 Sep 2015 05:19:52 -0700") X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: <877fo1f5nu.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net, "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" , fcc@lists.prplfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] draft of my letter to the fcc X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:38:09 -0000 Dave Taht writes: > this is a draft letter to the fcc. It kind of needs a title, more > footnotes, and other formatting - and if more folk here are willing to > sign, we can get rid of the first person stuff and make it "we". A > review for accuracy would be nice, and I can put it up on google docs > for a group edit if you like. I'll certainly happily sign it; I already submitted my own (fairly short) comment, but that shouldn't prevent me from signing this, I guess? One point, though: On the comment web site the max length of submitted comments is 5000 characters; yours is more than twice that long. Don't know if they lift that limit for document uploads (which was an option), but you may want to look into that ;) If you do need to shorten it, it gets a little ranty in the middle, so some of that could probably be cut down, or removed entirely... -Toke