(Sorry about this. I sent a private email to Sr. Mendez, in hopes of
explaining to him, in terms that he could understand, that he may have
some misconceptions. Hhe chose to reply on ietf@xxxxxxxxx)
Eduardo Mendez wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding what I say.
To be blunt, I don't "misunderstand" you. I don't understand your point
at all, and I'm now positive that you are looking for an argument
without bothering to look for facts.
Then you did not read his post.
Sorry. _I_ thought I read it, and _I_ was there, when I thought I read
it. Were _you_ there, when I thought I was reading it, to know if I was
really reading it or not?
Because of this, in just under a month, the IESG is going to make a
decision about whether to bar Dean from posting to IETF mailing lists
for [some time / forever].
I see you did not read RFC 3683.
Again, bluntly, the private email you were replying to QUOTED THE RFC IN
QUESTION VERBATIM, WITH SURROUNDING MARKS TO IDENTIFY THE QUOTE. What
was your clue that I didn't read it?
I don't personally know all the facts in this case. I'm not on the
IESG and won't be involved with the decision, except the same way you
are: making sure that everything is fair, honest, and open.
Yes. And this is why there is no reason to dispute.
All I say is: before applying RFC 3683 let make sure it is legal.
Legal where? In the USA, where corporate law says that corporations
must have rules, and follow them? That would be the RFC that I quoted
in my email to you, that you say I haven't read, wouldn't it?
Enough. I will ignore any further messages from Sr. Mendez on this subject.
--
Unable to locate coffee.
Operator halted.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf