Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote:

> > 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!

Is it just me or did we have a discussion or two about protocols? (Not
sure what "product" in this context would be.)

> 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.

I clearly remember asking the chairs to schedule a meeting for Atlanta.

> to be blunt, where's the protein?  where is any good approach to this
> problem that does not derive from 8+8?

There are plenty of proposals and some drafts. Their good- and
derivativeness would be good subjects for discussion, I think. Also,
AFAIK everyone who attended found the unofficial meetings in Atlanta
useful.