"nothing of importance" (was: Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 04 January 2015 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFE51A1AD2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:20:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wHsDnuwm98Y4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:20:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4568B1A1ACA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 18:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0945BF02; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 02:20:33 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GbVru7qI6ZL8; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 02:20:32 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.26.8]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB71FBEF4; Sun, 4 Jan 2015 02:20:32 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <54A8A36E.3080701@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 02:20:30 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: "nothing of importance" (was: Re: RFC 20 status change last call: References to appendices)
References: <20150104015927.20881.qmail@ary.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20150104015927.20881.qmail@ary.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KlquEVSiYn1au7JFTP6oaq1sPSg
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Stephen Farrell <Stephen.Farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 02:20:39 -0000

On 04/01/15 01:59, John Levine wrote:
> Since the appendices in question say nothing of importance, I think we
> have spent far too much time on this already.

Isn't that what we always do? If someone had good ideas as to
how to decrease that kind of self-flagellation I'd be interested
and happy to try push those along. But please send those to me
off-list for now, an on-list discussion on this topic will most
likely end up 99% guff no matter how hard we each try to keep it
sensible. (I think part of our problem is that there are so many
of us and on any one topic some small few of us fall for the
"but I really have to reply this time" fallacy that that's always
going to make us make us look collectively dim;-)

Ta,
S.