IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 14 February 2017 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 878BE1298C6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:55:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 E1cn5cPgidRy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CAB7129484 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:55:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id x49so124917544qtc.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:55:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=IBSumjNF3gjW4qcwRcwaH7PXahBl6pumKz6i4DScz08=; b=cGAjzFZ7/7/jBVQ4kCqBU1CD5Y3eQK3ey8btA9g74udQENAyRgzWKVn00Vh/gw1j8s nfacv4Fs6t2Xl9NJ1vB6UZ2MN36SzEhSdlLDiwPEzw8CWAgn6wSxNxDkpD1cVlPbpe/Z h5LAP5O63kqz975gSDw8zQHZ9SQYfu4pgM6grIixdTGON4hWFm4v87O5znA5HLudeqET uH9k1uaEPDMEWtbq3454tgu6cuvag6ZuDpbpW/YTkelvtuESblLeEMiYzkPJ4PzYsJ/1 tSOD7rH/0E8ELIIEh5KnMe1P+K/2itlgOaDoMo2YiqO5ZTEGzNH1PO10W3US7qBrqLcS H6Zg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=IBSumjNF3gjW4qcwRcwaH7PXahBl6pumKz6i4DScz08=; b=bfVoscQRlB826v0vMubdr0JDdPNniNS+wZUq5ft5p1RgqhaqiGBkDHmQfS/PcO8ec4 5Mzv6dxUcQyKuswLeT24eQQBDpdlKMOro6IQT9HR6wXy21r1WpmXUzw+Zt54JsMpXDHK nQNXCgdgAaxDBsWl8dAoCFGfyJ/typK3zW9yinLRip5y+yHOhX7PZx6dz8K+ywavSCqQ OONvN/rc4GqO8wmCLdCgXTRFj6H6MFYmtAZybSTqLiqt4MhrJjikGOugRtDwlFNPI7aj Ik2CGPJojGTAzAN/pXrAbqc/pMTphdNgo4oqsODtneloLH8q/wrq0CnueK5uKGE5gFox Hx3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39ncAZjhkg5yjhgcvJ1ohgzf11atI7xsJEbHjeXqqJTGww/n/jm2betZxpcsfdYDrw==
X-Received: by 10.200.44.1 with SMTP id d1mr29221492qta.215.1487116531382; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:55:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.228] (c-73-167-64-188.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [73.167.64.188]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l53sm1264830qtl.41.2017.02.14.15.55.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:55:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <C1A6EB5D-7E9B-4812-BF67-4B5FBAA1E8B0@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_298D07F6-B1F5-4853-A2D7-BE359B207F66"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: To "lose the argument in the WG"
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:55:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <7EAC6978-01B4-42A5-B949-A21AD9568190@qti.qualcomm.com>
To: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
References: <66A86016-0382-4B2C-B9E8-30638237CB68@qti.qualcomm.com> <00e13499-7cea-a79a-7de1-dd9bad4bc530@dcrocker.net> <20170214060156.73B32639AEDF@rock.dv.isc.org> <0A3B2FF0-8F1C-430E-B4ED-DFA4CDB1FDB3@gmail.com> <0FB75520-E0BA-453C-8CF6-9F2D05B95FD6@fugue.com> <76d4aff3-760c-b258-a4e5-426ba69923f7@dcrocker.net> <84E813AE-6BD6-4EC3-A8CD-8AB24C9857D2@qti.qualcomm.com> <2F13B46F-AFE5-4E49-9724-3737781B4883@fugue.com> <7EAC6978-01B4-42A5-B949-A21AD9568190@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hUDuhdTwpvV9GW6Tmv6Vc9zJwtA>
Cc: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:55:33 -0000

On Feb 14, 2017, at 6:51 PM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> The WG should have sought the expertise.

This appears to be a rule quite frequently honored in the breach.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email