Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
As for 5016, you are highlighting one of the problems with calling
such documents "requirements" since slavish adherence to its desires
eliminates any benefits from later insight.
What you call "slavish", I'd characterize as water under the bridge.
Were mine the only voice raising concerns, that might be appropriate.
What you seem to be saying is that any single person should be able
to reopen with no barrier every bit of consensus that was achieved
in rfc5016. I'd like to hear what the actual barrier ought to be
from the chairs.
Since I didn't say or mean anything close to your interpretation, I can't
guess what prompted you to invent it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html