Subject: RE: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publicat ion of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

From: Tony Hain <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:57:56 -0800

Moshen,

On behalf of the IAB, I am recognizing your formal Appeal titled Complaint
Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188. While the
length of your note addresses the detail requirements of RFC 2026 6.5.4
paragraph 1, the timeliness required in paragraph 2 appears to be lacking.
Nevertheless, the serious nature of your concerns deserves a commensurate
level of attention, and it will take some time to review and consider a
response. I will ask the chair to include this as an agenda item for the
next IAB meeting. 

To be clear about the discussion and review, let me try to summarize your
lengthy note and see if I understand it.

1 - The RFC editor took an excessive period of time to publish.
2 - The IESG added commentary without consultation with the author.
3 - The RFC editor appears to have abdicated editorial control to the IESG.

If I missed something please let me know.
================================================================
Tony Hain			[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> 

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Mohsen BANAN [mailto:[email-masked]]
		Sent:	Friday, November 06, 1998 3:05 AM
		To:	IETF Mailing List
		Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; RFC Editor;
Internet Architecture Board; [email-masked]
		Subject:	Complaints Against The IESG and The
RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

		              Complaints Against The IESG
		                   and The RFC-Editor
		           About Publication of RFC-2188 (ESRO)

		                      Mohsen Banan
		                    [email-masked]

		                    November 5, 1998

		This is a complaint against the IESG and the RFC-Editor
		about publication of RFC-2188 (Efficient Short Remote
		Operations - ESRO) as an Informational RFC. A lot went
		wrong in the process of publication of RFC-2188.  The
		highlights are:
		 ...... cut here to avoid unnecessary duplication

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:45:03 -0800 (PST)

>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 11:57:56 -0800 , Tony Hain <[email-masked]> said:

  Tony> Moshen,
  Tony> On behalf of the IAB, I am recognizing your formal Appeal titled Complaint
  Tony> Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About Publication of RFC-2188. While the
  Tony> length of your note addresses the detail requirements of RFC 2026 6.5.4
  Tony> paragraph 1, the timeliness required in paragraph 2 appears to be lacking.
  Tony> Nevertheless, the serious nature of your concerns deserves a commensurate
  Tony> level of attention, and it will take some time to review and consider a
  Tony> response. I will ask the chair to include this as an agenda item for the
  Tony> next IAB meeting. 

Thank you very much.

I believe a thorough review of this case by IAB is a good thing.

Allow me to point out that this is not a traditional "Appeal"
case.  Our RFC has already been published and RFC publications are
permanent. In other words, there is not anything in specific that 
needs to be done about about that RFC.

By a thorough review of this "Complaint", I am hoping that you may be
able to prevent such problems from happening in the future. And, that
is important.

  Tony> To be clear about the discussion and review, let me try to summarize your
  Tony> lengthy note and see if I understand it.

  Tony> 1 - The RFC editor took an excessive period of time to publish.
  Tony> 2 - The IESG added commentary without consultation with the author.
  Tony> 3 - The RFC editor appears to have abdicated editorial control to the IESG.

  Tony> If I missed something please let me know.

Yes. There are a number of other key points that needs to be added to
that list. I'll try to summarize those.

 4 - The process that was being followed was NOT that of BCP-9.

     (Please pay special attention to Steve Coya's email and the RFC Editor
     messages prior to that).

 5 - The IESG was out of control. The IESG was negligent 
     and irresponsible.

     (Please pay special attention to the fact that after
     8 months of delay caused by the IESG, the IESG note
     claims that the their note is only based on a
     "cursory examination". Yet in complete contradiction with that note
     the IESG wanted to put the spec on Standards Track.
     The IESG note about potential problems with the spec
     were never substantiated (or even documented) in anyway -- this is 
     separate from lack of consultation with the author.
     Please pay special attention to the long periods of time when
     our requests and questions were not responded to and
     were seemingly simply ignored by the IESG.)

 6 - There are not adequate safeguards in the process to protect
     against mistakes or negligence by the RFC Editor or the IESG.

I'll be happy to co-operate with you with the best of my abilities in
the IAB's review of this complaint.

Regards,

...Mohsen.

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:45:03 -0800 (PST)

Tony> Moshen,

Thank you very much.

Regards,

...Mohsen.

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:14:05 -0500 (EST)

You know, I can't believe how surreal this discussion is.  Let
me see if I understand this: a company's marketing efforts were
harmed because the IESG did not publish this guy's RFC in time.
Therefore the IAB will consider an appeal to see if the IESG 
should have been more responsive to this gentleman's bottom
line.

This is truly broken.  If the issue was that the IESG was
improperly denying the community valuable technical information
I suppose I could see the stink.  I'm not a fan of the
creeping professionalization of the IESG, but in this case
they appears to have operated in a totally proper manner.

Here's one vote to send this company over to an appropriate
forum, such as a trade show.  Bureaucratic sloth is not 
an appropriate grounds for an appeal, and doing so on the basis
of commercial harm makes it doubly inappropriate.

Carl

---

From: Carl Malamud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 18:14:05 -0500 (EST)

Carl

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 18:31:10 -0500

At 01:45 PM 11/07/1998 -0800, Mohsen BANAN wrote:
>...
>...

Given that the IAB is going to have to invest time in this matter, it 
would be useful if you could be clear with respect to your claims.  I
certainly can't tell what particular action of the IESG you consider
irresponsible, outside of delay.

Particular issues with the claim above -

  The note from the transport AD w.r.t putting it on the standards 
  track reads:
      
      ] If this is valuable technology then it would be a shame to miss
      ] the chance to get it on the standards track by a quick publication
      ] as an informational RFC 

  Ergo, the initial suggestion to consider putting something on the 
  standards track was predicated upon this being "valuable technology".
  not an assessment that indeed it was of value.  Further, placing 
  protocol work on the standards track is often recommended as a method
  of getting more participants and review of given effort.  It does not
  imply endorsement of a particular solution, only that a particular 
  problem space exists and needs to have effort applied.  Often, the 
  output of such efforts does not resemble what the initiators brought
  to the table (and this is definitely a feature :-).

  With respect to lack of substantiation of the IESG issues raised,
  you email in response to the comments provided by the IESG reads:

    ] Harald's observations are correct. 
    ]
    ] That part of the spec is not clear.
    ] 
    ] I will fix this problem in the next rev of the spec. 

  In RFC2188, section 4.6.3 remains a remarkably short section...  I
  not surprised that in the absence of clarity that the IESG added a 
  note; my surprise is that everything wasn't held for the mystical
  revision of the specification which fixes all.

  Of all of your points regarding IESG/RFC Editor process, are any
  actually substantiated?

It is unfortunate that it took 8 months for RFC2188 to published.  It 
is also unfortunate that your business strategy was built in some manner 
so as to apparently hinge on such publication. 

It is most unfortunate that the IAB and IESG's time will now be occupied
because its RFC publication process doesn't meet your expectations for
content-independent endorsement, and finally as a result of this mismatch,
that the level of energy available for efforts which actually use RFCs for 
standards work will be diminished for a short time.

/John

p.s.  In your claim you indicate that "peer pressure and public 
      embarrassment can be used as tools", and I definitely agree.  
      The most interesting things about tools is that they can
      be applied in so many ways.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 18:31:10 -0500

/John

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:55:23 -0500

Carl Malamud writes:
> This is truly broken.

I agree. Did the full IAB actually agree to hear this, or is this just 
one member's idea?

Perry

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:55:23 -0500

Perry

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 00:39:58 -0800 (PST)

>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:55:23 -0500, "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]> said:

  >> should have been more responsive to this gentleman's bottom

  Perry> I agree. Did the full IAB actually agree to hear this, or is this just 
  Perry> one member's idea?

Naturally, it is not my place to say what the IAB should
or should not do. 

My complaint (all 80 kilo-bytes of it) was complete and
self contained. It allows people to evaluate the
validity of my complaint independently.

Let me make some observations about the sources of the
types of comments that I have received so far.

Most of the people who think that my complaints are not
legitimate seem to be part of the System, part of the
Inner Circle, part of the Cult, ....

Now, it is well understood that the moment that any
service provider stops paying attention to the
complaints of its customers the service declines.

It is also well understood that it is an inherent
characteristic of Super Powers (in any domain) to
confuse self-interest with morality. This is simply a
symptom of lack of accountability.

May be this thing is rotting from inside.

I have done my part. The complaint is complete.

What the IAB does with it is not my call.

Your Call.

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 00:39:58 -0800 (PST)

Your Call.

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 11:26:27 -0500

>validity of my complaint independently.

That's great to hear!!   I have truly excellent news 
to deliver to you, if that message represents the entire
set of supporting material for the complaint...

Based on that news, I would expect that your appeal will
be very expeditiously processed, and you have no fear of 
a prolonged wait for a response this time.

>Inner Circle, part of the Cult, ....

Alas, I am honored to considered to be "part of the System, part
of the Inner Circle, part of the Cult", but I turned in my secret
decoder ring long ago and am now simply an Internet citizen.  

As I indicated, I believe that _part_ of your complaint is 
definitely valid.  There is no doubt (in my mind at least) 
that you had to wait many more months that should be necessary
for publication of an information RFC.  That's a valid issue,
although the reason this occured appears to be well-documented
in email that you attached (document status went uncertain with
the change in AD mgmt).  I also see several apologies for this
unfortunate occurance.  If you were simply seeking a more tangible
form of apology for the delay, I'd be the first to sponsor a 
pound of coffee, a box of chocolates, or a honorary T-shirt for
your team.

However, you appear to be seeking "reform", and that is far more
dangerous...  The fact of the matter is the IETF could probably
use some reform of process, but we have a working group for this 
purpose which insures that the entire constituancy has an opportunity 
to voice their opinions on the topic.  It's also important to note
that many of these folks use the IETF as an actual standards body 
(as distinguished from a expedited technical publishing service) 
so their opinions on IETF's priorities may differ quite a bit 
from your suggestions of reform.

The IETF faces many issues with growth and scaling of its operations
as the Internet continues to permeate more aspects of life, but I'm
not certain that turning it into a content-independent publisher of
digital blobs is the top priority.

/John

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 11:26:27 -0500

/John

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:45:15 -0500

> Inner Circle, part of the Cult, ....

Lets examine this again...

A reasonable summary (IMHO) of your complaint is that you're upset
because the delay in publishing an RFC made it hard for you to delude
people into thinking your protocol had an IETF stamp of approval and
hurt your marketing.

How does pointing this out make us part of a "cult"?

> symptom of lack of accountability.

I thought you were the one here with a self interest problem --
confusing your desire to have an RFC published to help you with an
obligation on the part of others to go along with what you wanted.

The IETF and IAB and RFC Editor had no "self interest" involved
here. They weren't going to gain or lose anything on the publication
of your RFC. You had the self interest here. Your RFC was wasn't
important to the community -- it was important to your "marketing
plan". You said that, not us.

Perry

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:45:15 -0500

Perry

---

From: "Mitch Denny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:38:16 +1000

> plan". You said that, not us.

I agree, I make use of RFC's all the time, I don't want to see
the library full of crap, if that means delays in publication so
be it.

If this persons project relied on the RFC being published then
they should have factored in a possible delay.

Cheers,

Mitch Denny
[email-masked]

---

From: "Mitch Denny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:38:16 +1000

Cheers,

Mitch Denny
[email-masked]

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:04:55 -0800 (PST)

There has been a number of questions and mis-representations
about my "motivations" in presenting my complaints.

I'll use Perry's meesage as an example of these
mis-representations to clarify this issue.

>>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:45:15 -0500, "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]> said:

  Perry> A reasonable summary (IMHO) of your complaint is that you're upset
  Perry> because the delay in publishing an RFC made it hard for you to delude
  Perry> people into thinking your protocol had an IETF stamp of approval and
  Perry> hurt your marketing.

My motivations for presenting my complaints are those expressed
in the beginning section of the complaint. That should have been
clear in and of itself. But, since we have all these
mis-representations, I'll supply the following two explanations.

 1) This is not a new topic. I have a track record of having
    brought up the issue of problems with the RFC Publication
    Service in this mailing list before. First in early
    February (1998) in a thread with the subject of "Re: Future of IANA".
    And a second time in late February (1998) in a thread with the 
    subject of: "Re: IANA split and RFC Editor". You can refer to
    the ietf mailing list archives for detail. I am also 
    including two sample messages from those threads to this note.

    My motivations for participating in those threads is same as 
    the motivations for the complaint.

    The second thread was suspended by a request from 
    Brian Carpenter in late Feb. As I said in my message then, 
    I am now in a way continuing that very same thread based on 
    a concrete case.

 2) The linkage between the word "marketing" and my motivations for 
    this complaints are absolutely wrong.

    Through out my complaint, I make it clear that in my view
    the primary value in the RFC Publication Service is:
         -  its wide  publication
         -  ease of access to RFCs all around the world
         -  its "permanence" 
         -  its consistency (format and subject matter)
         -  widespread awareness about the existence of the series
         -  ...
    I also make it clear that I consider 
    "IETF/IESG/IAB label of approval on the RFCs", not 
    all that important. The perception that the RFCs produced
    or approved by the IETF/IESG/IAB are always of a higher
    quality than other RFCs is a wrong one, in my opinion. 
    No one entity or group has exclusivity on good ideas. 
    Protocols that come from outside of the IETF and that 
    can start as Informational or Experimental are a 
    major source of progress and innovation for the Internet
    technical community. Consider how the web came about.

    In order to understand how the word "marketing"
    in that message was used, you need to understand the 
    context of that message. 

    At that point, after 7 months of 
    waiting, we had chosen not to put the spec. out for Last Call 
    as a Proposed Standard but instead publish it as an Informational 
    RFC because in that case the URGENCY for publication 
    outweighed our interest in  getting this document on the standards track.

    That in and of itself validates my statement that I was not 
    primarily interested in the IETF stamp of approval.

    My email which includes the word "marketing" in it was a 
    response to the then Area Director, explaining the 
    rationale for the URGENCY.

    Our Media Kits include an announcement about availability of 
    the ESRO Specification as an Informational RFC. The fact that we
    did not want to further delay printing and distribution of our
    media kits was cited as a reason for the URGENCY.

    That is all that I meant by:
        "The absence of the RFC is delaying our marketing efforts."

    None of our marketing or other documents have ever attempted to
    suggest in anyway that the ESRO Specification has a stamp of approval
    by IETF/IESG/IAB/... 

    There is a long distance between the above and the 
    mis-characterization of my motivations for presenting the
    complaint.

    With respect to putting the ESRO spec. on the Standards Track.

    Based on Scott Bradner's request I had agreed to put the 
    next revision of the ESRO spec. on the Standards Track
    when it is ready.

    The complaint covers the period between 1/15/97 and 9/11/97.
    Therefore I did not mention anything about my attempts
    in putting the spec. on the Standards Track later.

    The short version is:
        - I kept my promise to Scott Bradner and I attempted to
          put the next version on the Standards Track.
        - The IESG said they don't want to use that spec as a
          starting point because it is too OSIish and that now 
          if I want to go on the Standards Track, I should
          re-write the whole spec. so it is not OSIish.
        - I said I am not willing to re-do the specification because
          it will harm it significantly.
        - My complaint has nothing to do with any aspect of that.

My motivations for the complaint are those that I expressed in 
February on this mailing list which are the same as those the
complaint states.

...Mohsen.

-------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IANA split and RFC Editor
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 15:47:41 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 22:43:03 +0000, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> said:

  Brian> Please let's not waste time discussing this issue right now.
  Brian> We have much more pressing problems. When the dust has settled
  Brian> on them will be time enough to worry about the RFC Editor
  Brian> function. For now, normal service will continue.

  Brian>    Brian Carpenter

O.K.

Agreed. Given the current atmosphere (GP and all),
may be we are better off waiting a bit.

For now, I will not further pursue this issue and
wait till the dust has setteled.

There is a saying in Farsi that translates into
something like:

   "He who has been bitten by the snake
    becomes afraid of the rope."

My concerns about PRESERVING the so far open RFC
Publication Service, resulted into significant
over-reactions. 

I'll revisit those concerns later.

...Mohsen.

-------------
From: Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
To: Billy Biggs <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Mohsen Banan <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Future of IANA
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 21:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>

>>>>> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:00:12 -0500 (EST), Billy Biggs <[email-masked]> said:

  Billy> It seems that the government's proposal could bring about the
  Billy> transformation of the IANA to a non-profit organization.

  Billy> Does this include the role of RFC editor?  Where does the IETF stand in
  Billy> all this??

That is a very good question.

The IETF is only one of the users of the RFC publication service.

I think a better wording for the question is:

  "Does this include the RFC publication service?"

I believe there is general consensus that the RFC publication service
is badly stressed in many dimensions (volume, scope, IPR, timeliness,
procedures, ...) and needs attention and improvement.

...Mohsen.

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 17:04:55 -0800 (PST)

The short version is:

...Mohsen.

-------------

  Brian>    Brian Carpenter

O.K.

...Mohsen.

-------------

...Mohsen.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 18:13:15 +0200

>should have been more responsive to this gentleman's bottom

Folks,

I believe this characterizes Mr. Banan's view of things accurately, but not
the IETF's view.  

As a standards organization, the IETF must operate with scrupulous fairness.  

Since an IESG review is in the critical path for gaining publication of an
Informational RFC, any apparent unfair or arbitrary behavior by the IESG
must be viewed with concern and must be seriously and legitimately
reviewed.  That review process is, itself, part of the basis for the
credibility of the IETF, as well as its legal legitimacy.

One of the unpleasant requirements of the IETF's process is that it must
occasionally tolerate an unwarranted complaint -- and go through the pain
and effort of taking the complaint seriously -- on the off-chance that the
complaint is valid and that, therefore, a problem in the IETF needs
correcting.  We've all seen such complaints before and while they are
unpleasant, they don't do much damage.

As is often true in these sorts of proceedings, the issue isn't the
complainant but, rather, making sure that the IETF is holding true to its
principals and legal requirements.  Complainants vary in their style and
one might well wish the latest exception had been taken in a more subdued
manner and, for that manner, had followed IETF complaint procedures more
carefully (or at all.)  But none of this is relevant to the central issue.

So let me suggest that all who feel the need to shake their heads do so
quietly and in private and that we let the IAB do its thing, reviewing the
facts and offering their opinion.  They've had some practise and they do
this job well.

We all know that things don't always work perfectly.  There can even be
some benefit in this sort of review, if we don't get too worked up about it.

d/ 

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:[email-masked]>             Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
                                         Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting                                          
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464              675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 18:13:15 +0200

Folks,

d/

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 01:08:46 -0500

>        "The absence of the RFC is delaying our marketing efforts."

In which case you could have made the specification available via some
other means (such as your own web site?), and had *no* delay in your
marketing efforts, correct?

Or would that have been viewed as insufficiently "open", as shown in the 
full context of your statement below??

  ] Our business strategy hinges on the openness of our solution which in
  ] turn hinges on the availability of ESRO protocol specification as an
  ] RFC. The absence of the RFC is delaying our marketing efforts.

You state that your solution's "openness" is predicated upon using the 
official standards publication channel of the IETF.  Again, one might 
wonder what definition of "openness" was being used, since a truly open 
approach is easy to explain in marketing materials regardless of method 
of specification distribution.

>    suggest in anyway that the ESRO Specification has a stamp of approval

Other than with respect to implied "openness", obtained by use of the
IETF/IESG/IAB 
publication process (refernce: your email of Fri, 8 Aug 1997 15:19:37 -0700
which 
is quoted above).

/John

---

From: John Curran <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 01:08:46 -0500

/John

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:09:31 -0800 (PST)

>>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 1998 18:13:15 +0200, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> said:

  >> should have been more responsive to this gentleman's bottom

  Dave> I believe this characterizes Mr. Banan's view of things accurately, but not
  Dave> the IETF's view.  

No.

That does not characterize my  view of things accurately at all.

I don't need translators. 

At a minimum, you are completely wrong.

Here is the deal.

A *large* number of mistakes were made in the processing of RFC-2188.

The then Area Director probably characterized it best.

  Scott Bradner> ... the iesg fucked up and I'm trying to fix the issue ...

That is just a clear cut fact.

Then, after his involvement a whole bounch of other
things went wrong.

Now, I am convinced that without external oversight
those problems are going to be repeated and are not
ever going to be fixed.

So, I have spent a fair amount of time to prepare a
complaint that I hope will improve the process for
publication of non IETF Informational RFCs. I believe
that this will do good for the Internet technical
community.

Thank you very much for your support.

...Mohsen.

---

From: Mohsen BANAN <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 23:09:31 -0800 (PST)

No.

Here is the deal.

...Mohsen.

---

From: "mark.paton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:05:37 -0000

Dave,
I think the problem here is "EGO".  Mr Mohsen needs to grow up a little, if he wanted this RFC tabled he should have checked before the sitting of the committee.  The old adage works "he who dont ask dont get".

Lets get on with some real business.
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 08 November 1998 16:13
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Mohsen BANAN; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About
Publicat

Folks,

d/

---

From: "mark.paton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 06:05:37 -0000

Dave,

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 08 November 1998 16:13
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Mohsen BANAN; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Complaints Against The IESG and The RFC-Editor About
Publicat

Folks,

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:54:34 +0200

>Thank you very much for your support.

Now I can understand your concern for translation.  I didn't offer you
"support".

d/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 13:54:34 +0200

d/

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:28:15 -0800 (PST)

> if he wanted this RFC tabled he should have checked before the sitting of
> the committee.

warning, the uk meaning of tabled is reversed from the us meaning.  here
(well there in the us (i am in tokyo)) it means postponed to a future date.

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 05:28:15 -0800 (PST)

randy