> > > >> I think you have repeatedly made your point. > > Yes he has, and he makes a good point that should be heard. Your argument of > "RFCs aren't the law, and we can ignore parts of them if it suits us" just > isn't true. RFCs are based on consensus, and ignoring the outcome of that > consensus when it suits you is unacceptable for a WG chair.
Then I don’t think I have expressed myself in a way that has been understood by you. But he isn’t making a point that hasn’t been made many times before. I asked him to argue his point in the context of the actual drafts in question, which I believe he did not. The protocol police rhetoric used in the wider community doesn’t appear to me to add value, rather create disruption. I don’t see a need to continue this debate on meta issues, but since you framed this as criticism of me in the chair role I found it required to reply. Ole _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
