Frank,
I was the _only_ one who was NOT concerned by Brian's proposition. I
did not intend to comment it, thinking it was a good way towards
appeasement. However, I was everywhere in Harald's long ad-hominem
(BTW mostly against the IETF appeal procedure). His point is against me.
There are two different issues:
- the IETF police which should be exercised by Sargents at Arms as
everywhere, and a closed-door Honor Jury for ethical issues.
- the nature of the Internet architecture. Harald embodies a vision
(RFC 3935) where he influences the way I should design, use, and
manage the internet and he wants to impose on me through his control
of the IANA registry. I disagree with that way.
Maintaining confusion helps no one.
jfc
At 01:30 11/08/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a
>>> raincoat next week. It's still raining.
> 3683 = umbrella against a hail of messages
> Long term suspensions under draft-hartman = raincoat
> Brian's draft = "throwing away".
Oh, you prefer to keep 3683, instead of the status-quo antea
as specified in the draft. In practice the difference would
be no mandatory "PR action last call" without 3683, anything
else (incl. appeals) as is, if I understood it correctly.
Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf