Re: [yam] Wasting the working group's time and effort

[John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>]

--On Saturday, September 12, 2009 12:04 +0200 Alessandro Vesely
<vesely at tana.it> wrote:

> Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>>> I haven't seen a chair's assessment on this subject (yet.)
>> 
>> Yes you have, and you begged to disagree with it.
> 
> Ah, then you must mean
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00098.html
> ; I thought you meant a chair's assessment :-/
> 
>>>> Please document the wg support you have gotten which
>>>> refutes the  chair's assessment.
> 
> That's simple. SM checked that wording was already in RFC
> 2821, Ned provided a deep analysis of various cases, and John
> gave an explicit description of client behavior. I don't think
> they would have gone into such level of detail if they had
> thought it was a waste of time and effort; hence their conduct
> supports the worthiness of duly clearing the errata, which was
> the only point I disagreed with.

Oh, come on!  If we hadn't gone into that much detail, you would
be protesting that we didn't take your concerns seriously.  We
did take them seriously, especially since you invoked the errata
process (which I continue to believe was inappropriate).  In
that process, I've been told by the IETF Chair that responding
to you on the errata thread is the IESG's problem, not mine as
editor (or even the WG's), so, if you do submit further errata,
I, for one, will just ignore them.

Having taken your concern seriously, we have told you, in
several different ways and for several different reasons, that
your analysis was incorrect and that no change was justified.
It appears to be that conclusion that you decline to accept, in
spite of having gotten no support for your contrary view from
the WG.

    john