Brian E Carpenter <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> scribbled on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:02 PM: > 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, Please don't. I was brought up never to talk behind someone's back; in that context, the 'tone of my remark' is quite restrained, I think. > ietf@xxxxxxxx *is* the > recommended forum for IETF Last Call comments (see the text of > every Last Call message). I don't believe that I said anything different. There is a difference between doing the bare minimum necessary to satisfy the rules & what is required for simple courtesy. Sometimes that difference is quite small, in this case "CC: hokey@xxxxxxxx" but that still seems too much to manage in this case. > So I believe that Bernard chose the correct list to launch his Attack. I think that the word you want here is "attack". > 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