At 04:09 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
Michael StJohns wrote:
At 03:04 PM 6/9/2006, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Mike,
I am not going to engage in a public debate about what constitutes
the complete set of facts here:
I love it when discussions start out with throw away the facts.
That's a mischaracterization of what I said, and I'll accept
an apology.
You said "I'm not going to engage in a public debate about what
constitutes the complete set of facts here". Which I took to mean
that "What I believe are the facts are indeed the facts and I won't
be trying to integrate other views of the facts into my world view
nor will I do you the courtesy of trying to understand your point of
view on the facts". Perhaps my flippant comment was a
mis-characterization and for that I apologize, but it was much milder
than I was thinking.
The RFC Editor through agreement with the IAB and with funding from
the ISOC publishes the Internet Standards series under the banner
of the RFC Series.
No, ISI publishes (all) RFCs under contract from ISOC.
Fact.
This can mean either: "ISOC owns the RFC series and is paying ISI as
their agent to publish such a series" or "ISI owns the RFC series and
ISOC is paying them to publish additional documents under that imprint".
I believe the latter is correct absent any offer of proof of transfer
of rights.
<rest deleted>
You asked for constructive comment. I provided it. You ignored
it. Interesting method for gaining consensus.
Leslie.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf