Glen,
On 2008-03-19 04:31, Glen Zorn wrote:
...
> Some of us don't subscribe to the IETF list (due to the extremely poor
> S/N ratio). Someone did forward me Bernard's original message & to me
> it appears to fall squarely into the N category (either that or it is an
> early April 1 RFC candidate). I understand, though, that it is actually
> receiving serious discussion on the IETF list, so I'm happy that you are
> bringing some of that discussion to this forum. Of course, common
> courtesy would have required that the WG the work of which is being
> disparaged in outrageous fashion be included in the discussion but
> courtesy seems to be in short supply.
Setting aside the tone of that remark, ietf@xxxxxxxx *is* the recommended
forum for IETF Last Call comments (see the text of every Last Call message).
So I believe that Bernard chose the correct list to launch his opinion.
I can certainly agree that resolving this issue could be better done
on the WG list.
Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf