Re: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track

To: l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:59:14 -0800
Archived-at: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9AJ7DoX8SU009SyHVyIlySYSxvA
Cc: barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E6334722@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Reply-to: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0

On 2/19/2014 4:51 PM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

The process has not been odd.

The outcome has been expedient.

Different thing.



Maybe not.  In the IETF, an expedient outcome is pretty odd.

d/

--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

References:
- Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track
  - From: Barry Leiba
- Re: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track
  - From: Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track
  - From: Barry Leiba
- Re: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track
  - From: S Moonesamy
- Re: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track
  - From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
- RE: Appeal from Phillip Hallam-Baker on the publication of RFC 7049 on the Standards Track
  - From: l.wood