So I think this thread seems to have descended into the fairly pointless and unproductive category. Maybe let's leave it there while Barry and I tot up the responses to the concensus call and see what we (as chairs) make of that.
In particular: Michael Thomas wrote: > Dave CROCKER wrote: >> A number of the latest set of posts indicate that some folks haven't read >> RFCX >> 4871, and I don't mean "carefully". It almost looks as if they haven't read >> it >> at all. Worse, the point that is constantly being ignored was proffered >> quite >> clearly in the Errata draft. So it appears they haven't read that document >> either. Dave - you know that a lot of the folks that disagree with you here have read and contributed substantially to 4871. Saying otherwise isn't helpful. > > ::snort:: ... > > This is rich. > Mike - please take a deep breath before hitting "send." Just being annoyed on the list is also not at all helpful. There are clearly a bunch of folks who have contributed to 4871 that do agree with the approach Dave is espousing here so just labelling that revisionism only serves to aggravate and won't get us closer to resolving the issue. Thanks, Stephen. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
