Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

>> What is required to break the impasse of no progress within the IETF on
>> multi6?
> 
> I'm not *recommending* this, but any action/inaction on the part of the
> IESG, including the ADs for this WG, is appealable provided that one
> follows the formal appeals process.

i am impressed by your approach to technology and engineering.  welcome
to the new ietf where we care more about process and politics than protocol
and product.  sheesh!

> Frankly, I think the ADs and WG Chairs for multi6 are well across the
> line, outside the boundaries of civilised behaviour to not even permit an
> active WG with active on-charter list discussions to meet to discuss items
> listed in an IESG-approved WG charter.  This is particularly true since it
> is not a one-time occurrance, but a repeated behaviour on their part.

quite an assertion.  can you point to the request sent to agenda@ietf.org
to hold a meeting?  if not, ... where the sun don't shine.

to be blunt, where's the protein?  where is any good approach to this
problem that does not derive from 8+8?  and where is any progress on
8+8 that has not been stiffled by a middle-school clique approach to
working on it (thanks, ran)?

randy