Dave:
If you feel that group was rogue, please explain. If you do not,
what is the basis for your view that its considerations were
sufficiently faulty to warrant being overridden?
Prior to the appeal, this aspect of John's rationale was not
raised. It was not raised by John, the document PROTO shepherd, or
the IESG member sponsoring the document.
Again, I hope we do not find ourselves in a he said/no he didn't
exchange. I'll
merely suggest that had the Discuss been immediately taken to the
public mailing
list, it seems pretty likely that salient details would quickly have been put
forward.
This is an individual submission, not a WG document. So, there is no
charter that lists the appropriate mail list for such a
discussion. That said, John did take the issue to a mail list. I
know this because someone forward his posting to me. John did not CC
me on the posting, which I interpret as not seeking dialogue at that point.
Russ
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf