On 07-Oct-22 07:05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 10:47 AM Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> On 10/06/2022 1:42 PM EDT Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> See, this just goes to show how little I know about the IETF. I guess someone might have to read 8710 RFCs to get to that one. I'm still in the four thousands.
>
> --
>
But back to my point, We All deserve to know who the accuser is. It's only fair.
Huh? This isn't a criminal trial and there's no question of witness credibility.
In any case, given that Lars sent this email, I think it's fair to assume he stands
behind it. Whether others are in favor or someone suggested it to him seems
irrelevant and I don't see that BCP 83 requires it that that somehow be documented.
It doesn't. As the IETF Chair during the first two of the three PR Actions
previously approved, I am quite sure of this. BTW, the Last Call being sent
in the name of the IETF Chair doesn't rely indicate personal belief either.
It presumably reflects the facts that the IESG agreed to the Last Call and
that the IETF Chair is also the IESG Chair.
The fact that the IETF Chair sent the Last Call exposes him to quite a
bit of accusatory email, but it's misplaced. The same will go for the
message announcing the IESG's decision at the end of the Last Call.
As has already been implied, if one doesn't like BCP 83, blaming the
IESG for following BCP 83 is off topic for this list. There is a well
known method for changing BCP 83, which is also off topic for this list.
Regards
Brian
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
