Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050630112519.041f4de0@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:33:47 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: it was a private mail ...
In-Reply-To: <000601c57d35$1ba58c20$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <200506271728.j5RHSOK4010945@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
	<22563.1119937030@munnari.OZ.AU>
	<E4B87F0214DF2516CD2A4C7F@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
	<5F1B6D95C0DBE599ACBA1A9F@scan.jck.com>
	<1452A05293A1AAB40A2E4A62@gloppen.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050628153555.03eb3eb0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<011a01c57c1f$5224c8e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050629004548.04950a60@mail.jefsey.com>
	<002501c57c61$44d7ea40$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<11492D65F8A99335DD784FE9@scan.jck.com>
	<5C4950A6DB066AA7B203C206@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050629185506.04708d60@mail.jefsey.com>
	<007501c57ce3$869bb920$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050629224205.048050e0@mail.jefsey.com>
	<001001c57d02$edb81d00$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050630031244.040eecc0@mail.afrac.org>
	<000601c57d35$1ba58c20$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 07:32 30/06/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>I apologize for offending your refined sense of netiquette.

Thank you. But netiquette is netiquette. We both know what you tried.

>By now no one should be surprised to learn that
>I prefer to err on the side of openness.

err is a correct word.

>Proposals
>to change the WG schedule or do anything out of the
>ordinary in the last call process clearly must be discussed
>in the open.  The need to keep the process fair and open
>is more important to me than the finer points of netiquette.

This exchange had nothing to do with the WG, it resulted from your 
discussion on an external list of a quote on from another list refering 
inappropriately to this WG.

There is no proposed change of the WG schedule, to the contrary. I take 
this remark as a way to help derail the possibility of a consensual quick 
close-up of the RFC 3066 bis draft as proposed by your co-chair.

I do not understand it.
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru