I'm sorry that you read it that way. The first response that was
drafted was a point-by-point reply as you suggest. It was extremely
repetitive, with the same points being made over and over. I found
the reply cumbersome at best. It was my suggestion that we take the
points that were made over and over in that formulation of the
response and structure it this way.
At 08:28 AM 9/4/2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be
responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to whether
the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is
Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to the
appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please just
move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.
IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with
Trustees mailing list
Ietf mailing list