> Dave, I'm sorry, but it didn't show that at all. The specific problem
> arose here WAS anticipated and analyzed and the correct thing to do in
> this case
> WAS determined and documented. See RFC 3797 section 5.1 for specifics.
I don't know how many ways I can say this, but 5.1 is irrelevant to the
problem I was concerned about, which is having the pool come out at the
same time as the results. That allows for mischief in many ways (not
that I'm accusing anyone of that). Under the circumstances I *still*
believe that the chair did the correct thing, and that his doing so has
ensured the integrity of the process.
Ietf mailing list