Brian E Carpenter <mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
scribbled on
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:02 PM:
Glen,
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,
Please don't. I was brought up never to talk behind someone's back; in
that context, the 'tone of my remark' is quite restrained, I think.
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org *is* the
recommended forum for IETF Last Call comments (see the text of
every Last Call message).
I don't believe that I said anything different. There is a difference
between doing the bare minimum necessary to satisfy the rules & what is
required for simple courtesy. Sometimes that difference is quite small,
in this case "CC: hokey(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" but that still seems too much to
manage in this case.
So I believe that Bernard chose the correct list to launch his
Attack. I think that the word you want here is "attack".
opinion. I can certainly agree that resolving this issue could be
better done on the WG list.
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf