Stephen Farrell wrote:
I guess my question is why you felt the need to post this, Stephen?
(Sigh.) For information. In the past, with this WG, the IESG
were ok with us not strictly adhering to the 30-day notice
requirement, i.e. they then considered that we were giving
sufficient notice.
IMO we've thrashed this one enough.
Perhaps you missed the fact that you didn't answer my question, Stephen.
I didn't ask you to repeat the information that you had just supplied. I
asked why you chose to post it.
Saying "for information" doesn't answer the question.
Since you had already indicated you were querying the ADs, what was the
purpose of responding to my note with a claim that precedent had already been
established, particularly after I had noted why I thought the issue was
sensitive now?
d/
ps. interesting that engineering precedents don't seem important to you, but
process ones do.
ps. And thanks for the (sigh). Very helpful.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html