Florian Weimer wrote:
I'm confused. I thought the message mentioned by Thierry is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, and Rob's reply is contained in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; the latter is a reply in all relevant senses I can currently think of. Perhaps there was another message to the four authors that hasn't been Cc:ed to the mailing list, which was actually "private" and not merely "off the record" (or whatever), but I can't infer that from Rob's
I was working on the theory that "private e-mail message from me to the four authors" meant off the list. If the note was more public than that -- as your note and Lucy's suggests, and yes I saw that cited note -- than the issue of "private" is moot. My real point, of course, is that it doesn't matter. The question would appear to be whether there is serious working group consensus to go counter to Rob's default decision and, instead, to discuss the merits of the topic -- as opposed to niggling process nuances. Based on my own reading of 12 hours of postings, there so far appears not to be. d/ ps. FWIW, I decided to dive in on this because I have nothing to do with the particular topic -- and therefore no biases about it -- and I like seeing wg chairs try to make progress, albeit in a well-documented manner, such as Rob has done. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
