At 04:07 PM 9/7/2006, John C Klensin wrote: >I think we have a small misunderstanding here. Let me say more >clearly and briefly My message was intended to clarify why the SASL WG is pursuing an Informational recommendation for its RFC2195bis work and to redirect any comments specific to this work to the WG's list. As it was not my intent to participate in the general discussion of "fundamental issues with our standards process" you raise (which is why I changed the subject), and your follow-up is in the same vein, I won't comment further. -- Kurt _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf