Sam Hartman wrote:
"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 andsecurity policy support our position.
RFC2026 doesn't support your position or the security policy. And I found the sentence about discussion that took place on this list particularly objectionable. You heard from a lot of HTTP implementers and decided that the process junkies on this list make IETF consensus.
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.
OK. I want to write a document that makes MTI a non-requirement for HTTP1.1-based protocols, because I believe that is the consensus in the HTTP community. How do I get that done?
-Rob _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf