Re: are we willing to do change how we do discussions in IETF?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




>> My recollection is that every issue raised, by anyone, got considered.
> 
> Well, you kept claiming that we couldn't possibly anticipate the ways in
> which the DKIM protocol would be used, therefore there was no
> justification for the WG to change DKIM significantly from its original
> design.


1. I did not say anything like what you are stating. Please read more carefully.

2. I am but one voice.  It means little what I say.

3. What DOES matter is that a) there was discussion, and b) you failed to obtain
group support.  THESE mean quite a lot.

You continue to confuse your not getting what you want with a group's failing to
do due diligence. They are quite different.

The critical concept that you seem to make a point of missing is called "rough
consensus".

d/

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]