Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 04 December 2014 13:23 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 E0E731A1A50; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:23:45 -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, 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 W83lbD03vOTK; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:23:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11ABD1A1A4D; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:23:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A505DA0101; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:23:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFC053E076; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:23:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 05:23:13 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <BD47A3B6-64D1-4FBC-8353-4970F808F092@surrey.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:23:00 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <31A28A6F-70EB-4333-8FA0-7E71A45F2356@nominum.com>
References: <20141201223832.20448.34524.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A4CFF3FB-A9C5-47EA-A1CA-B900CDBF776E@gmail.com> <87498266-8A59-40F8-B987-D51D9828BB33@nominum.com> <BD47A3B6-64D1-4FBC-8353-4970F808F092@surrey.ac.uk>
To: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/jyvTKnCUmN5vjlWAiJef8O4kMbI
Cc: bob.hinden@gmail.com, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 13:23:46 -0000

On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:00 PM, <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> That's an ad-hominem argument that has no bearing on the current proposal.

It's not "ad hominem" to ask someone why they think one thing is different from another.   I actually agree with Bob that the abstract to 6346 says something that's not true, and it needs to be changed (I hadn't thought about it before he pointed out the problem).   I asked Bob why he didn't object to the other proposals because I wanted to know.   I doubt he was unaware of them.