Sam,
"Denis" == Denis Pinkas <denis(_dot_)pinkas(_at_)bull(_dot_)net> writes:
Denis> Sam,
>>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> writes:
Russ> Denis: I do not consider these to be new comments. You made
Russ> them during WG Last Call, and there was considerable
Russ> discussion on the S/MIME WG mail list. In the end, you were
Russ> unable to gain any support for your position. Why do you
Russ> feel I need to respond to the same comments again?
>> I tend to agree with Russ.
Denis> I do not see how it may be possible to reach a consensus if
Denis> a dialogue is not accepted.
Russ is the editor. You said that you have already brought these
issues up in the WG. It is no longer Russ's job to engage with you if
he does not want to.
You previously said:
"I strongly suggest that you try and build consensus for these two
positions separately".
I keep trying. Now you say:
It is the WG chairs' job to describe the reasoning for why your
comments were rejected during the WG discussion and I've asked the
chairs to do that.
This does not sound to be a way to try to build consensus for these two
positions separately. Am I missing something ?
Denis
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf