[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [idn] WG last call summary

To: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
Subject: Re: [idn] WG last call summary
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:05:40 -0500
Cc: "Keith Moore" <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, idn@ops.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, iab@isi.edu
In-reply-to: (Your message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:34:59 +0800.") <056001c1ceee$ad303300$dd00a8c0@jamessonyviao>

> It is useful technical input on the first time.
> By the 353th time, someone got to ask what else are they contributing?

of course once should be sufficient.   
some people don't realize that we don't do voting.

> It is a protest and appeal against the last call. The IETF process specify
> the exact process to do so in RFC2026 Section 6.5.

perhaps, but this isn't a justification for ignoring valid concerns.

Keith

References:
- Re: [idn] WG last call summary
  - From: "James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>

Prev by Date: Re: [idn] WG last call summary
Next by Date: Re: [idn] WG last call summary
Previous by thread: Re: [idn] WG last call summary
Next by thread: Re: [idn] WG last call summary
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread