[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56
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.