Crocker says ``The DRUMS working group deliberated on this point quite
carefully'' but won't provide a shred of evidence. Nobody else on DRUMS
seems to remember any such deliberations.
Crocker and Newman say that there was, and still is, consensus in DRUMS
on removing the tokenizer. Nobody else on DRUMS seems to remember ever
supporting Resnick's removal of the tokenizer.
There's extensive evidence in the DRUMS archives that Resnick considered
the removal of the tokenizer to be his own personal decision, within his
editorial discretion. I don't see any indication of tokenizer discussion
in any of the subsequent DRUMS meeting minutes.
When did these ``deliberations'' take place? Where are the people who
participated? Where are the people who support Crocker's ``consensus''?
If Crocker is telling the truth, why can't he answer these questions?
as it is, one could argue that you are pursuing a deprivation of service
attack, by preventing publication of the new IETF specs,
How can _I_ prevent publication? I'm not in charge of the specs. I've
merely been pointing out problems.
It's not my fault that, for example, Klensin is continuning to ignore
the working group consensus on the QUIT issue, and the EHLO issue, and
the VRFY issue. It's not my fault that Klensin is trying to use 821bis
as a weapon against some popular client behavior that offends him. It's
not my fault that Klensin recommended that clients use a new EHLO syntax
that will fail with some existing servers, preventing mail delivery.
It means introducing personal content.
No. When you talk about every use of a person's name as ``ad hominem''
you simply make yourself sound illiterate.
---Dan