Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

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

To: Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:55:29 -0500
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx>, IETF discussion list <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <7EAC6978-01B4-42A5-B949-A21AD9568190@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org> <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com> <0FB75520-E0BA-453C-8CF6-9F2D05B95FD6@fugue.com> <76d4aff3-760c-b258-a4e5-426ba69923f7@dcrocker.net> <84E813AE-6BD6-4EC3-A8CD-8AB24C9857D2@qti.qualcomm.com> <2F13B46F-AFE5-4E49-9724-3737781B4883@fugue.com> <7EAC6978-01B4-42A5-B949-A21AD9568190@qti.qualcomm.com>

On Feb 14, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The WG should have sought the expertise.

This appears to be a rule quite frequently honored in the breach.

References:
- To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Pete Resnick
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Dave Crocker
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Mark Andrews
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Yoav Nir
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Dave Crocker
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Pete Resnick
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Ted Lemon
- Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
  - From: Pete Resnick

Prev by Date: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Next by Date: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Previous by thread: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Next by thread: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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