So I think this thread seems to have descended into the
fairly pointless and unproductive category. Maybe let's
leave it there while Barry and I tot up the responses
to the concensus call and see what we (as chairs) make
of that.
In particular:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
A number of the latest set of posts indicate that some folks haven't read
RFCX
4871, and I don't mean "carefully". It almost looks as if they haven't read
it
at all. Worse, the point that is constantly being ignored was proffered
quite
clearly in the Errata draft. So it appears they haven't read that document
either.
Dave - you know that a lot of the folks that disagree with you here
have read and contributed substantially to 4871. Saying otherwise
isn't helpful.
::snort::
...
This is rich.
Mike - please take a deep breath before hitting "send." Just
being annoyed on the list is also not at all helpful. There
are clearly a bunch of folks who have contributed to 4871
that do agree with the approach Dave is espousing here so
just labelling that revisionism only serves to aggravate and
won't get us closer to resolving the issue.
Thanks,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html