--On Monday, 23 June, 2008 14:19 -0400 Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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, that note was sent to the mailing list after I received your "change the document or appeal" note. I believed that note from you closed the door on any further dialogue with you (or the IESG). The note to the SMTP list was simply to collect opinions on which of the two choices you gave me to adopt. If you intended the "change the document or appeal" note to be interpreted in any other way, I apologize for not copying you on the question to the list, but I really could not figure out any other way to read it (and cannot to this day). best, john _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf