Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:42:38 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <453F3F9E.6090703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|
| > | 1) Do you support the proposal in section 2 of the draft to restore
| > | the AD and IESG's ability to suspend posting rights for longer than
| > | 30 days and to approve alternative methods of mailing list control
| > | as originally documented in RFC 2418?
| >
| > The proposal, as a general thing, yes, the method it does it, no.
|
| Please be specific - what is wrong with the words?
Because what's in the words in the draft is not doing what the question
above implies that it is doing, it isn't restoring 2418 to its state
before later rfcs (intentionally or not) messed with it, it (the draft) is
proposing a whole new set of words that actually alter 2418.
All that is needed is to say that "notwithstanding the wording of any
RFC between 2418 and this, all provisions of rfc2418 apply as written in
rfc2418".
That is restoring 2418. What your draft does is change 2418. Note that
nothing above removes anything of what is in 3934, except where it (seems to
or does) limit the 2418 options.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf