On Sun Mar 19 20:59:46 2006, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
The only part of the IESG note that can be
considered to have any aspect of legitimacy is:
I say again, I examined RFC2524 is some detail, both because it was
prior art in an area that was under heavy discussion at the time in
Lemonade, and because you'd suggested it be a reference in the
Lemonade Profile Bis draft, and concluded that the IESG note was
correct in all its points, save that I cannot claim to have enough
experience to look at ESRO in detail.
Do you object to:
a) The "censorship" of RFCs based on technical merit? (In other
words, would you prefer to be able to publish any technical document,
no matter how bad?)
b) That the IESG is providing the technical review needed by the RFC
Editor to ensure the RFC series maintains quality?
c) That the RFC Editor chooses to publish the IESG's review, on
occasion, in the actual document?
As to your free protocol foundation and whiteberry projects, I'd
never heard of either until you brought them up. That's certainly
causing no harm. If they were popular projects pulling useful input
away from the IETF and Lemonade respectively, I'd classify that as
harm.
Dave.
--
You see things; and you say "Why?"
But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
- George Bernard Shaw
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf