Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement

To: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb at cr.yp.to>
Subject: Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry at piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 23:02:58 -0400
Cc: drums at cs.utk.edu, sob at harvard.edu, ietf at ietf.org
Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 23:20:38 -0400
In-reply-to: Your message of "05 Aug 1998 02:29:42 -0000." <19980805022942.19409.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Reply-to: perry at piermont.com

"D. J. Bernstein" writes:
> Frankly, I don't see why any MTA implementor, let alone an implementor
> such as Newman with a financial interest in the results, should be
> allowed to chair an MTA working group. How does the IESG expect to
> protect itself from lawsuits?

Given that none of the "problems" you are complaining about induce any 
financial hardship on anyone or have any financial impact, I believe
this is a moot point. Unless someone directly involved in the
standards process gets financially harmed, there is no basis for a
suit seeking financial damages. The difference between whether an MTA
is required to wait for a response to QUIT or not does not in any way
give a financial advantage to anyone.

Perry

References:
- Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement
  - From: D. J. Bernstein

Prev by Date: Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement
Next by Date: Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement
Previous by thread: Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement
Next by thread: Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: RFC 2119 violations and DRUMS mismanagement

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.