Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050629001557.04a7ee80@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:42:34 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Resolving issue #944
In-Reply-To: <00a501c57c27$b8492fa0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <00a501c57c27$b8492fa0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 23:24 28/06/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>I plan to close issue #944 on length constraints, marking it resolved.
>If you object, or believe that the recently-submitted -07
>draft does not reflect WG consensus, please speak NOW.

Randy,
I certainly think it does not reflect any consensus. I accepted to 
represent this lack of consensus. I therefore whish to know what this short 
mail means. Is this a WGLC, what is its duration? What is your intended 
schedule concerning the charter anlaysis? What is your intended schedule to 
send these Draft to the IESG? Do you prefer to discuss this Draft within 
the WG or during an IETF last call?

A serious review of a document which has grown to the size of a book calls 
for stable version and a few days. Is this version final in the current 
author's mind or will there be a -08.txt to take into account the last 
changes?

I am also confuse because you say that #1026 is reopened. I must apologise 
but I have never been able to understand and I have not the secretariat 
facility to translate all these number in meaningful post. But I understand 
from this that -07.txt is not final? However I marvel that in an Internet 
global doctrinal document Jersey and Gernesey are to so important (I used 
to navigate there and I incorporated my first company in Jersey ...)

jfc




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru