IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review)

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Fri, 19 April 2013 08:29 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EBB21F9026 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vVUM9OzlfdBA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.151]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0015A21F86B2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 01:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.245.231.67:45969] by server-15.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 59/ED-22815-46001715; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:29:24 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1366360162!30816417!5
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.8.6.1; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 1073 invoked from network); 19 Apr 2013 08:29:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-4.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Apr 2013 08:29:23 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.180]) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.39]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:27:34 +0100
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: ynir@checkpoint.com
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:23:45 +0100
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review)
Thread-Topic: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review)
Thread-Index: AQHOO6uAkYNXJKWRyEmIKVS5GuPId5jbdJGAgAAIsICAAEJXWoAARRgggAEyZAA=
Message-ID: <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408223F494E70@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <CADnDZ89kMbXCst92gH5mN3tsuV6VR_Yo9ROaiXba8uOOCMG3jw@mail.gmail.com> <1D6E4110-8BE8-4D7D-91F7-3CB1E0F6925A@wierenga.net> <201304161551.r3GFpYgE2798122@shell01.TheWorld.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077514BC8F@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>, <201304172038.r3HKcMgT2892908@shell01.TheWorld.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408223F494E6B@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <364C575F-3B22-44AD-9CC9-61242C2FEE9B@checkpoint.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408223F494E6C@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111A0F977@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com>
In-Reply-To: <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111A0F977@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:29:28 -0000

and the point of your ad-hominem argument is what, exactly?

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts


________________________________________
From: Yoav Nir [ynir@checkpoint.com]
Sent: 18 April 2013 15:18
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: worley@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG     Review)

Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has several co-authors that I recognize as current "goers". You also have a current draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea whether they're "goers" or not. Anyway, you are not a hermit. Through the RFCs and drafts that you have co-authored, you know people who do attend.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email