On Tue, April 27, 2010 3:23 am, Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:18:33PM -0500, Marsh Ray wrote:
Taking ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org off of CC list as this seems to be very TLS
specific.
This is an IETF LC, not a WG LC; IETF LC comments should be sent to
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) If anything, we might want to drop
tls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
I cannot post to IETF(_at_)IETF(_dot_)org, for dishonest and apparently
unlawful
reasons. I won the consensus call in the PR Action, but the consensus
was fraudulently reported. But the PR Action itself is not consistent
with the legal requirements to suspend member rights in a member
corporation: The law requires a vote of the membership, and that 51% of
the membership vote for the suspension/expulsion. There are other legal
issues (e.g. antitrust) involved with preventing corporations from
participating in a standards body, but I won't go into those here.
However, fact remains that I cannot post to ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
All the more reason to drop tls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org!
Dan.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf