Sam Hartman wrote:
"Robert" == Robert Sayre <sayrer(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
Robert> On 10/17/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf(_at_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
>>
Michael> Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
>> Yes. I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way.
Robert> I don't feel that way. I did wait a long time for a
Robert> response.
Brian's note explained why we believe that the current process and
security policy support our position.
RFC2026 doesn't support your position or the security policy. And I
found the sentence about discussion that took place on this list
particularly objectionable. You heard from a lot of HTTP implementers
and decided that the process junkies on this list make IETF consensus.
I respect that you disagree
with that conclusion. However the ball is now in your court. You are
welcome to build consensus behind a proposal to change the process, to
better document the process, etc.
OK. I want to write a document that makes MTI a non-requirement for
HTTP1.1-based protocols, because I believe that is the consensus in the
HTTP community. How do I get that done?
-Rob
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf