Eduardo,
I think I may be misunderstanding you, and if so I apologize. As I
understand it, the original announcement of the 'last call' was not
sent in strict accord with the agreed procedures, in that it used the
wrong mailing list. As a result it has now been sent to the correct
mailing list. There was then a question "should the deadline -- the
end of the call -- be as originally announced, or should it be
extended?" It seems, I think, that it is only fair that it be
extended, in case there were people who did not see the first
announcement. This gives all parties at least the required time to
discover the last call, read, and respond if they wish.
I think you are arguing that the original deadline should have been
maintained, that it was in fact unfair to extend it, but I am not
sure I understand why you feel this. If this is how you feel, could
you explain? And if I am wrong, could you correct me?
Many thanks,
--
David Singer
Apple Computer/QuickTime
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf