On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Cullen Jennings wrote:
> Well it sounds like we both agree that it is the IAOC job to make
sure they
> have answers to the questions I am raising before making a decision.
We are seeing a solid pattern to suggest that U.S. reading skills
have declined
seriously.
Sorry but I'm Canadian, Eh, so don't blame the US. Besides, as Spencer
correctly points out, my writing is worse than many ESL people.
I neither expressed nor implied any opinion at all about your
questions, except
that they are out of scope for the query being made by the IAOC and
that any
pursuit of your questions ought to be done *separately*.
By "separately" you mean doing something like changing the subject
line? But on to the serious answer ....
As an IESG member, I was aware the IAOC was considering a meeting in
China before the IAOC announced it on a public list. I felt that I
should not discuss it as an individual contributor on a a public list
until the IAOC made the topic public. To my knowledge this query from
the IAOC was the first time it had been made public so I brought up
the issues at the first point in time available. I'm not sure what
else you would have suggested I do to ask for information that I think
is important.
The question from the IAOC, as far as I can read it, asks if we are OK
with having the meeting be canceled for everyone if one person discuss
various under specified things that includes topics that are illegal
in China. It seems to me the questions of if our normal discussions
are illegal or not is very relevant to making that decision.
d/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf