RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

ietf

RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal

2008-04-07 08:10:50


Exactly .. I don't see the problem. I've not seen any evidence of abuse.
IMHO if the procedure is not broken why are we trying to fix it?

Why is the IETF so continuingly dragged about in these, frankly trivial,
process issues?

 I won't repeat what others have said about the presence or
 absence of the problem, but I'm not convinced either.
 
     john


_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: Blue sheet harvest, (continued) Re: Blue sheet harvest, Scott O. Bradner The purpose of blue sheets [Re: Blue sheet harvest], Pekka Savola Re: Blue sheet harvest, Theodore Tso Re: Blue sheet harvest, Iljitsch van Beijnum Re: Blue sheet harvest, Bill Manning RE: Blue sheet harvest, Hadriel Kaplan Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal, john . loughney Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal, John C Klensin Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal, Marshall Eubanks Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal, John G. Scudder RE: Blue Sheet Change Proposal, Richard Shockey <=

Previous by Date:	Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-rmt-bb-norm-revised (Multicast Negative-Acknowledgment (NACK) Building Blocks) to Proposed Standard, Pekka Savola
Next by Date:	Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) toDraft Standard, Pete Resnick
Previous by Thread:	Re: Blue Sheet Change Proposal, John G. Scudder
Next by Thread:	Re: Last Call: draft-resnick-2822upd (Internet Message Format) to Draft Standard, Brian E Carpenter
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]