It is obvious that we have very divergent thoughts & feelings in this broad topic area, which in any event is not in the technical area of competence of IETF.
So, in the interests of technical progress & personal emotional calm, perhaps the one side can stop shoving sticks into the beehive & the other can stop assuming that the current majority voiced view is held by all rational good persons.
WRT the narrower "last call" question, I do not see evidence of consensus.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2022, 13:29 Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/25/2022 1:07 PM EDT Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2022, at 12:05, Timothy Mcsweeney <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 10/25/2022 9:34 AM EDT Paul Wouters <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022, Lloyd W wrote:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/global-whitelist
> >>> interesting that the terminology furore of the past few years and the subsequent NIST recommendations (here:
> >>> suggesting use of allowlist/denylist) have not reached far into the IETF.
> >>
> >> It is a mistake that we will correct.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Since it's a list we are all on, I would like to suggest an alternative name. How about Master-list?
>
> I consider this email inappropriate and unprofessional. It was a follow up to another one of your emails that as similarly inappropriate and unprofessional.
>
> Additionally, you keep misusing the last-call list for off-topic messages.
>
> I ask that the moderators evaluate these messages.
>
> Paul
It's on topic, relax. No need to try and make me the next BCP83 victim.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
