>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Robert> On 10/17/06, Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
Michael> Can an appeal be rejected with merit?
>> Yes. I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way.
Robert> I don't feel that way. I did wait a long time for a
Robert> response.
Brian's note explained why we believe that the current process and
security policy support our position. I respect that you disagree
with that conclusion. However the ball is now in your court. You are
welcome to build consensus behind a proposal to change the process, to
better document the process, etc.
Text about interoperability was added to Brian's recently approved
protocol extensions discussion. The text was drawn from the IETF
mission statement with added emphasis on what interoperability means
in practice.
So, we felt that it was reasonable for you to ask us to explain where
our interoperability and security requirements come from. Your appeal
had merit because we actually had to dig up an answer; we couldn't
point you at one place. It turned out that once we'd done the
digging, the answer was clear to us. Again, I respect that you
disagree.
The IESG cannot and should not be responsible for initiating all
process and documentation clarifications. If you think our processes
are unclear, then try to help clean them up. Either write informative
documents or try to start building a consensus behind a change.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf