Harald,
I would say that the pointed-to reference gives a full and
sufficient explanation of the closing of the MARID working group.
However, that is a distraction.
An interesting question in my mind is that it is possible -
in the current operating model - for one person to decide both to
close a group without explanation and to list someone else as the
contact point for questions. I doubt that was the intent, but it
certainly sound to me like a recipe for DoS...
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
--> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:14 AM
--> To: Frank Ellermann; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
--> Subject: Re: Oops
-->
-->
-->
-->
--> --On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 08:13:26 +0100 Frank Ellermann
--> <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
-->
--> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
--> >
--> >> I'm told that my recollection is faulty
--> >
--> > It's not, that breach of RfC 2418 chapter 4
--> > caused two of the three pending appeals.
-->
--> to be accurate:
--> the message that MARID was concluded did contain
--> information about why.
-->
--> <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current
/msg00505.html>
WRT pending appeals, these are listed on
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html>
The two appeals do not concern directly MARID's closing, although one might
surmise that if MARID had been successful, this mess would have been less
messy.
Harald (just reading public notices)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf