> I do hope this conversation can get back to the many points in Mike's messages that need consideration and evaluation to effectively move forward. +1 Tones and tone policing aside, I think the IETF has a tendency to move to meta-discussions (and meta-meta-discussions, like this post) quite easily. FWIW, I find it easiest to achieve something in an environment where discussions have moderate tones and are focused on matters rather than persons. Thanks for the FidoNet rules, btw, Randy. They seem almost like another instance of Postel’s principle. Don’t set the annoy bit in the messages you send, because it might make it less likely for the message to be received. Probably food for thought for many of us, including myself. Perhaps we can get back to analysis of the situation, and the forward-looking what we can do next in the short term and the long term. I am unhappy about the result, but does the protocol need a better implementation or a new architecture or were there just bad circumstances? And perhaps we can talk about it in terms of principles rather a particular packet flow. FWIW, while I am in the IAB none of these questions are to me at least obvious but I’m looking to understand them better and learn from that. Jari
