This is a personal draft written following some discussion
in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome.
I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt
Brian
Original Message
Subject:
Yaakov,
It might be me, but it seems (to me) that - if you think through
what you've said - it is not consistent. Maybe it's simply an issue of
relative time scales.
Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate
it - argues very forcibly that no such gap can
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a
raincoat next week. It's still raining.
If the umbrella is Sam's experiment, and the raincoat
Brian's draft, then the latter didn't propose to throw
away the former. Are you talking about something else ?
Maybe
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Historically, documenting for reference produces an Informational status,
rather than Historic.
Yes, and the idea was to make a stronger statement than for reference.
iirc, we considered briefly approving it for Informational and then
immediately reclassifying
Dear Harald,
its seems that you are rewriting History (past and future) in the
same funny way as before (eg. your PR-action letter). BTW I am happy
to learn I am only suspended for 6 months from the obsolete
[EMAIL PROTECTED] One month to go then.
Look, you have used RFC 3683 to DoS me,
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a
raincoat next week. It's still raining.
If the umbrella is Sam's experiment, and the raincoat
Brian's draft, then the latter didn't propose to throw
away the former. Are you
Harald == Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harald I regard a 6-month ritual of: 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from
Harald ietf-languages 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his
Harald unsuspension 3) Wading through Jefsey posts until
Harald everyone's sure he's still as
Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian This is a personal draft written following some discussion
Brian in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome.
Brian I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with
Brian
I regard a 6-month ritual of:
1) Unsuspending Jefsey from ietf-languages
2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his unsuspension
3) Wading through Jefsey posts until everyone's sure he's still as
incomprehensible as before
4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month
Harald,
Especially this simile.
The way I read this draft, it suggests that the IETF in general
has found the choice between fixed length suspensions and indefinite
suspension altogether too restraining. The explicit wording of the 2
paragraphs of substantive text is that the
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a
raincoat next week. It's still raining.
3683 = umbrella against a hail of messages
Long term suspensions under draft-hartman = raincoat
Brian's draft = throwing away.
Oh, you prefer to keep 3683, instead of the
Frank,
I was the _only_ one who was NOT concerned by Brian's proposition. I
did not intend to comment it, thinking it was a good way towards
appeasement. However, I was everywhere in Harald's long ad-hominem
(BTW mostly against the IETF appeal procedure). His point is against me.
There are
Total of 36 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Aug 11 00:03:01 EDT 2006
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
16.67% |6 | 16.71% |32127 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
11.11% |4 | 10.61% |20394 | [EMAIL
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IETF Operational Notes '
draft-alvestrand-ipod-03.txt as an Experimental RFC
This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group. This is a process experiment under RFC 3933.
The IESG contact person is
14 matches
Mail list logo
