I corrected error (underlined). Apologies.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eduardo Mendez <eduamendez(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Date: 17-oct-2005 16:27
Subject: Re: Can the USA welcome IETF (was: Last Call under RFC 3683
concerning Dean Anderson (reissued))
To: David Kessens <david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>
2005/10/17, David Kessens <david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>:
I don't appreciate your suggestion that there could be another motive
for reissuing the Last Call as the explanation in the note that
accompanied the reissued Last Call message was quite clear in it's
I am sorry you do not appreciate.
This is may be we do not share the same culture.
Every culture is to be respected.
For your information. There are other countries when the procescutor
makes such a mistake it kils the procescution. This protects the
rights of the accused person.
What you did increases the rights of the accusator.
You also are the victim, a law maker, a judge, and an appeal judge.
There are countries where you must ask another AD to procescute.
There are countries where one is not allowed to say:
"Mr. X did wrong".
One must say:
"Mr. X seems to have done wrong".
Or Mr. X can sue you and win.
Everyone is innocent; except when the Judge said he is not.
And there is no appeal.
Sorry: I mean. "and you stay innoncent until the end of the appeal".
So, sorry if I hurt you.
The Last Call was reissued since the first message was inadvertently
send to the the IETF announce list (where all other IETF Last Call
messages are send) instead of the IETF discussion list as specified by
RFC 3683. It seemed prudent to reset the Last Call timer to avoid any
conflicts on whether the Last Call would have been of sufficient
NB. You created a conflict on duration: it is too long.
"Sufficient" is a word like if you had made your mind as a Juge.
In true Justice lawyers would use it.
Your rights can be defended only if you defend the rights of everyone?
Ietf mailing list