Paul,
Thanks for doing this. A few comments:
- the first two bullet points in section 3 are basically speculation,
"a number of..." is meaningless. These bullet points are ultimately
not even necessary to make the case being made. Delete these, please.
- fourth bullet in sectio
OK, this is ridiculous. "non-inclusive behaviour"? Bullying? Gimme
a break.
If the editor of a draft in an IETF WG blocks legitimate email
concerning the draft then perhaps the editor of the draft shouldn't
be editor of the draft anymore.
I'll volunteer to take over this draft. I don't b
On May 5, 2021, at 23:15, Dan Harkins wrote:
OK, this is ridiculous. "non-inclusive behaviour"? Bullying? Gimme
a break.
I actually tried giving you a break last time you brought this up,
but literally days laters you repeated the same behaviour again.
Actions have consequences, so I exerc
WRONG! You got exactly ZERO emails since your last hissy fit yet
you went out of your way to send me one accusing me of bullying
you. Your passive-aggressive attacks are getting ridiculous and
really tiring.
Oh, and cryptography is deemed an armament by your own government.
So maybe petition
