Subject: RE: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC (Jefsey) Morfin

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:40:43 -0500

Eliot,

	Ideally, nobody is "just some person with a random opinion" 
and the implication associated with asserting that someone stands 
out because of this is disingenuous - to say the least.

	If we do in fact learn anything from the reply you elicited,
it is that there is more than one reason why the question is not
appropriate - for this kind of question and at this point in the
discussion.

	I do not doubt that you asked the question out of a sincere 
desire to find out what the answer is.  However, there are plenty
of people - here in the IETF as well as everywhere else in the
world - who ask "why" for no other reason than to put the person
expressing their opinion on the defensive.

	Consequently, I believe it is innappropriate to publicly
question - or otherwise challenge - the opinions being sought in
a discussion like this.  As the announcement said, the IESG will
be making a decision, it was the IESG that solicited comment and 
it should be up to the IESG to determine what level of detail is
required with those comments and when additional information is
needed.  I suspect that the IESG will solicit additional input if
they feel that there is a large minority opinion that they feel 
should be analyzed in detail.

	If people genuinely want to know what the basis for any
individuals comments are - or wants to know more than a person 
was willing to say initially, then they should ask privately.
If the individual in question receives enough private questions,
perhaps they will - as in this case - choose to give a public
answer.

	Or perhaps not.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:23 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: Marshall Eubanks; Scott Hollenbeck; [email-masked]; 
--> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: IETF Last Call under RFC 3683 concerning JFC 
--> (Jefsey) Morfin
--> 
--> Marshall's not just some person with a random opinion, but 
--> the ombudsman
--> for the IETF list.  And so he speaks with some authority.  Also, he
--> doesn't come to rash conclusions, and so I for one value 
--> his considered
--> opinion.  And that's why I prodded him for more.  And I'm more
--> enlightened because of it.
--> 
--> Eliot
--> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:48:30 -0500

Hello;

Receiving multiple queries as to why I made a decision makes me wonder
if I made it properly and articulated it properly. Thus, in the  
course of a sleepless
night fueled by jet-lag, I looked into the matter further with the  
results as you have seen.

I still think that a simple support / do not support response is more  
appropriate in this matter
and regret that it seemed necessary to expend list bandwidth on my  
reasoning.

Regards
Marshall

P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not  
claim that honor.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:08:15 +0100

> P.S. I was not appointed "ombudsman for the IETF list" and would not
Sorry- wrong word.  Sargeant at Arms (my own sleeplessness).

Eliot

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:43:04 -0500

Hello;

> Sorry- wrong word.  Sargeant at Arms (my own sleeplessness).

Nope, that that either.

Please note that I claim neither special knowledge nor special  
position in this matter.

Regards
Marshall