Harald, I would say that the pointed-to reference gives a full and sufficient explanation of the closing of the MARID working group. However, that is a distraction. An interesting question in my mind is that it is possible - in the current operating model - for one person to decide both to close a group without explanation and to list someone else as the contact point for questions. I doubt that was the intent, but it certainly sound to me like a recipe for DoS... -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx --> [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of --> Harald Tveit Alvestrand --> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:14 AM --> To: Frank Ellermann; ietf@xxxxxxxx --> Subject: Re: Oops --> --> --> --> --> --On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 08:13:26 +0100 Frank Ellermann --> <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: --> --> > Brian E Carpenter wrote: --> > --> >> I'm told that my recollection is faulty --> > --> > It's not, that breach of RfC 2418 chapter 4 --> > caused two of the three pending appeals. --> --> to be accurate: --> the message that MARID was concluded did contain --> information about why. --> --> <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current /msg00505.html> WRT pending appeals, these are listed on <http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html> The two appeals do not concern directly MARID's closing, although one might surmise that if MARID had been successful, this mess would have been less messy. Harald (just reading public notices) _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf