On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
AD hat squarely on my head.
On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Oh. Now I understand.
You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many
years after the IETF approved it.
Thanks. Very helpful.
That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me as
the consensus caller. And it is rude.
Since you've made this a formal process point, I'll ask you to
substantiate it carefully and also formally. The implication of your
assessment is that IETF participants must not comment on the utility of
comments by others.
I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing to
do with personalities. So, please explain this in a way that does not
sound like Procrustean political correctness.
For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it
and yes, of course alternate wording was possible. However the thread
is attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort and
to ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities, including
published research data.
A bit of edge is warranted for such wasteful, distracting and
destabilizing consumption of IETF resources. In fact an important
problem with the alternate wording, such as you offered, is that it
implies a possible utility in the thread that does not exist.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net