On 21 Jan 2016, at 12:47 am, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The reason I picked on 5785 is that it was the one that the DE refused to give any explanation of the need for when I asked in private. Since you bring it up - You sent me one brief e-mail making a couple of suggestions about how the registry process could be changed, motivating them with your "mmm" proposal. I responded affirmatively to an observation you made, and to the suggestions noted: """ The relationship with that registry was discussed in LC, and we explicitly decided NOT to tie them together, IIRC. """ Your e-mail asked *no* questions beyond a closing "Thoughts?", and you did not follow up with any response to my note. How *exactly* did I "refuse to give any explanation when you asked"? You seem very willing to claim bad behaviour and besmirching of character by others, while remaining blind to your own foibles. You also seem to presume that DEs are there to serve you -- sometimes upon a poorly-voiced wish -- rather than being appointed volunteers with a very prescribed role. The DE is not responsible for gathering statistics, summarising the consensus that led to the registry's establishment, or answering any other queries outside the scope of the registry. If someone asks nicely, I usually take the time to respond, but you didn't ask nicely -- in fact, you didn't ask at all. I very much agree that registry process is an important area that could be substantially improved in IETF process, and have largely held my tongue despite your bad behaviour, because experience shows that engaging in this kind of petty online bickering is so rarely productive. However, I will not tolerate your mischaracterising my actions to the list in an attempt to justify your own poor behaviour. Kind regards, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/