On Feb 12, 2016, at 9:30 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: > As far as I know, I have never insisted it needs to be a standards track > document. I just re-read all my email I have sent on this issue, and I have > consistently used the term "documented in an RFC".
Forgive me, but you were opposing my position. > ... so you blame me for not reading your email, but it seems you're not > reading mine, or putting words in my mouth I never uttered and asking me to > argue for a position I have never taken. No. I never said you refused to answer the question. I had never asked you the question directly before. > I don't care if the document is Informational or Standards track, but I still > want the document. You have opposed the document to be created at all, and > that's what I have been arguing against. And again, please read my messages. Including the one you just replied to. I have *repeatedly* said that I'm OK with it being an informational RFC. This whole conversation began with me requesting that the document be an informational RFC. Just.. enough, already. Please. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
