[Removed IESG and RFC Editor from the recipients] On 4/9/00 at 1:52 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >Although Pete is attempting to support my comments -- and I equally >concur with his point of view -- in fact I did not say what he >offers as the summary of my statement. What I said was actually >quite different. I agree. I apologize for any mischaracterization, and I think my most recent response to Vernon explains my understanding of your position fairly. However: >So, debate about that draft should move to that working group's list. I will heed your advice and henceforth take any required discussion to private mail or to that list. pr
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Martin J.G. Williams
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Fred Baker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication ned . freed
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Pete Resnick
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Karl Auerbach
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Fred Baker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Tripp Lilley
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch in Mountain View
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication RJ Atkinson
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication John Stracke