Dave,
Snipped, question inline.
Yours Irrespectively,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 1:58 PM
To: John C Klensin; ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Ad hominems (was: Policy of WG chairs in organising time for
presentations and face2face discussions)
On 2/25/2014 11:52 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
for those who think the question was inappropriate, a comparative
question about the following two entirely hypothetical cases:
...
Case 2: You have asserted that a protocol feature being
reviewed in a WG does not work. Have you implemented
and tested it and, if not, on what basis do you make
that assertion?
For this thread, it's been interesting to watch the way people have been
skipping logic steps, conflating issues, inventing issues, wandering off into
hypotheticals, or entirely missing basic issues.
[JD] For my personal understanding, why isn't the above an ad hominem attack
of those that disagree with you?