Eduardo,
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 10:51:54PM +0200, Eduardo Mendez wrote:
2005/10/14, David Kessens <david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>:
[NOTE:
It has come to the attention of the IESG that the original Last Call
message was posted to the IETF announcements mail list while RFC 3683
specifies that it should have been posted to the general IETF discussion
list.
To correct for this oversight, this Last Call message is reissued with a new
expiry date and posted to the correct mail list as prescribed by RFC 3683.]
So, the proscutor/judge AD saw no one was interested. One "yes", one "no".
He thinks one month will be too short. So he finds a way to do it again.
I don't appreciate your suggestion that there could be another motive
for reissuing the Last Call as the explanation in the note that
accompanied the reissued Last Call message was quite clear in it's
motivation.
The Last Call was reissued since the first message was inadvertently
send to the the IETF announce list (where all other IETF Last Call
messages are send) instead of the IETF discussion list as specified by
RFC 3683. It seemed prudent to reset the Last Call timer to avoid any
conflicts on whether the Last Call would have been of sufficient
duration.
David Kessens
---
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf