On 2008-03-19 04:31, Glen Zorn wrote:
Some of us don't subscribe to the IETF list (due to the extremely poor
S/N ratio). Someone did forward me Bernard's original message & to me
it appears to fall squarely into the N category (either that or it is an
early April 1 RFC candidate). I understand, though, that it is actually
receiving serious discussion on the IETF list, so I'm happy that you are
bringing some of that discussion to this forum. Of course, common
courtesy would have required that the WG the work of which is being
disparaged in outrageous fashion be included in the discussion but
courtesy seems to be in short supply.
Setting aside the tone of that remark, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org *is* the
forum for IETF Last Call comments (see the text of every Last Call message).
So I believe that Bernard chose the correct list to launch his opinion.
I can certainly agree that resolving this issue could be better done
on the WG list.
IETF mailing list