On 19/08/10 18:06, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 08/19/2010 09:20 AM, John Levine wrote:
Be sure to tell them that ADSP is not useful, according to one of the
authors of the ADSP RFC.
Chairs --
Can I ask for a revision of ADSP where John is stripped out of the document?
You can ask. The answer is that we don't currently have
a revision of ASDP on our charter and RFCs do not change.
It's ridiculous that he presumes to speak for it,
John was an editor of ADSP, which is a WG product. I think its a fine
thing to do editing work even if you don't agree with the content.
I personally wouldn't then deride the WG output, but the RFC is what
gets read, so I treat remarks like John's as the background noise that
they are, but I do understand why some WG participants find it annoying.
and it was a huge mistake
to give him this undue credibility. Especially when he has none.
That last is out of order on a list such as this. Please desist.
And everyone else: please don't take up this thread. Let's get the work
we have on our plate done and not get sidetracked again. Generic praise
or criticism of ADSP is currently out of scope.
Stephen. (As chair)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html