On 01:41 12/05/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
Doug's response about "treachery and skulduggery" was unhelpful, but understandable in light of Jefsey's patently offensive initial comment. (number 23 in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg00540.html )
The comment is correct. It may be Franglishly awkward, but itis not offensive. It says that the MUST is inadequate because its procedure of application is not documented. It then say how the MUST and the lack of procedure will be understood (because this is the way it was understood by _every_ of the five reviewers I called upon. It was also a point which really upset them).
Anyway, I am sure that if that comment was patently offensive, the Chairs would have clarified the issue with me before broadcasting it as #952. This point is obviously out of a Draft non replacing RFC 3066 and does not prevent consens on that case. This point is an absolute blocking factor as is language treatment disparity.
jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.