Subject: RE: My request for less traffic

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 11:07:03 -0500

Folks,

Since my name has now been used publicly by Mr. Simpson, I must put my
private remarks to him in context. My request is for the removal of the
rancor, vitriol and general back-and-forth that has been taking place. I
directed my private remarks to Mr. Simpson in part because he has been
the source of much of the emotional content.

The tone of recent remarks from various parties harms the process and
does not aid in establishing facts and analyzing them. Recent input from
Mr. Venters is a welcome contrast to previous traffic and should serve
as a model to all of us, including Mr. Simpson.

I do NOT wish for discussion on the important issue of "killer packets"
to cease, only for it to proceed graciously and productively. 

Best regards,

     -jf-
Opinions are mine, not Larscom's.
Jim Frimmel
[email-masked]                Larscom, Inc.
Desk: 919.467.4000 x206            P.O. Box 13111
Fax:  919.467.1920                 RTP, NC  27709

>----------
>From: 	William Allen Simpson[SMTP:[email-masked]]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, November 25, 1997 6:46 PM
>To: 	[email-masked]
>Subject: 	Re: draft-ietf-pppext-sonet-ds-00.txt
>
>> From: [email-masked] (Charles M. Heard)
>> There certainly was no call for consensus.  For the record:  although I did
>> participate in the e-mail discussion on the pppsdh list, I take issue with
>> significant parts of this document, and I do not endorse it.
>>
>We don't have votes in the IETF.  The mailing list discussion _is_ the
>consensus process.  I could make the assumption that the participants
>were ignorant of usual mailing list discussion process, and did not send
>their technical contributions in the expectation of a future vote, but
>since Tony Li was on the list and is a long time IETF participant, there
>is no excuse for him.  Silence is consent.
>
>Joining a mailing list to discuss an issue, and then not contributing,
>and then complaining about the result, is simply egregious
>obstructionism.
>
>For the record, consensus was achieved because there were no valid
>technical objections raised.  All of the questions raised in contributed
>drafts and comments were answered.  If there are more questions in this
>wider audience, as are being raised at this late date by Stuart, then
>they should be addressed.  The IETF has a long review procedure.
>
>However, I take exception when those present on the PPPSDH list (and
>that includes Stuart) start raising new objections.  Perhaps they did
>not think of them at the time.  But, it really does not help move things
>along.  And I feel like the 1/2 time unpaid effort that I expended for 5
>weeks was wasted.
>
>Since there seems to be some political discussion about process and
>procedures, I suggest that we take that up at the in-person meeting in
>DC.  I have already had yet another request that we take this to a
>separate mailing list again:
>
>  From: [email-masked]
>  As a courtesy to those of us who must deal with a large volume of mail
>  from various lists, could you please take this discussion to direct
>  email? It has gone way past the point of being useful to the general
>  audience.
>
>Therefore, I will make any further responses on the PPPSDH list.
>
>[email-masked]
>    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
>