Hi Russ,
At 12:07 07-09-2009, Russ Housley wrote:
I'm sorry that you read it that way. The first response that was
drafted was a point-by-point reply as you suggest. It was extremely
repetitive, with the same points being made over and over. I found
the reply cumbersome at best. It was my suggestion that we take the
points that were made over and over in that formulation of the
response and structure it this way.
I do not have any doubt that you and the other individuals who are
members of the IETF Trust are doing their best for the IETF Trust and the IETF.
I read the response of the IETF Trust to the appeal from John C.
Klensin dated July 18, 2009 as described in the message posted by
Thomas Narten.
There are a lot of discussions on the main IETF mailing list. That
mailing list is generally used to bring issues to the attention of
the entire IETF Community and to discuss about them. Some, if not
most, of the issues and discussions may not be of interest to
everyone in the IETF Community. There has been complaints from IETF
participants about amount of traffic on that list. Maybe that's what
prompted the IETF Trust to request that discussion of the response to
the appeal be directed to the tlp-interest list. An appeal is a
serious matter. The main IETF mailing list is the venue, in my
opinion, to keep the entire IETF Community in the loop.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf