Sam, >>>>>> "Denis" == Denis Pinkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Denis> Sam, > >>>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Housley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Russ> Denis: I do not consider these to be new comments. You made > Russ> them during WG Last Call, and there was considerable > Russ> discussion on the S/MIME WG mail list. In the end, you were > Russ> unable to gain any support for your position. Why do you > Russ> feel I need to respond to the same comments again? > > >> I tend to agree with Russ. > > Denis> I do not see how it may be possible to reach a consensus if > Denis> a dialogue is not accepted. > >Russ is the editor. You said that you have already brought these >issues up in the WG. It is no longer Russ's job to engage with you if >he does not want to.
You previously said: "I strongly suggest that you try and build consensus for these two positions separately". I keep trying. Now you say: >It is the WG chairs' job to describe the reasoning for why your >comments were rejected during the WG discussion and I've asked the >chairs to do that. This does not sound to be a way to try to build consensus for these two positions separately. Am I missing something ? Denis _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
