>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> On 10/17/06, Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Michael> Can an appeal be rejected with merit? >> Yes. I think Robert's recent appeal was rejected that way. Robert> I don't feel that way. I did wait a long time for a Robert> response. Brian's note explained why we believe that the current process and security policy support our position. I respect that you disagree with that conclusion. However the ball is now in your court. You are welcome to build consensus behind a proposal to change the process, to better document the process, etc. Text about interoperability was added to Brian's recently approved protocol extensions discussion. The text was drawn from the IETF mission statement with added emphasis on what interoperability means in practice. So, we felt that it was reasonable for you to ask us to explain where our interoperability and security requirements come from. Your appeal had merit because we actually had to dig up an answer; we couldn't point you at one place. It turned out that once we'd done the digging, the answer was clear to us. Again, I respect that you disagree. The IESG cannot and should not be responsible for initiating all process and documentation clarifications. If you think our processes are unclear, then try to help clean them up. Either write informative documents or try to start building a consensus behind a change. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf