Re: IETF Trust response to the appeal by John C Klensin (July 18, 2009

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Without taking positions on the specifics of the appeal or the
> response, I have to say that my take on the response is that it
> doesn't properly address the appeal and is inadequate.
>
> I would have expected the specific issues raised in the appeal to be
> responded to in a direct manner, with a clear response as to whether
> the point is agreed to (or not) and what (if any) remedy is
> forthcoming.
>
> Instead, the response smacks of trying not to respond directly to the
> appeal, but say "here is what we have been doing, let's please just
> move on". IMO, that just doesn't cut it.
>
> IMO, an appeal needs to be responded to with directness and with
> clarity.

You saved me the time to compose a lengthier response, and instead I can
just +1 yours.

/Simon
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]