RE: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

Pekka,

For clarity.  You say multiple proposals are "probably" ok?  That sounds
dictatorial and I don't think you mean't it that way did you?  The
objective of the IETF is to bring good ideas to our body?

Please clarify for the community your statement?

Thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:10 AM
> To: Syam Madanpalli
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> Subject: Re: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward
> 
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Syam Madanpalli wrote:
> > We are going to develop an entirely new protocol based on the ZCT 
> > Requirements?
> 
> If you read it carefully, the proposal goes a bit further 
> than the original ZCT proposals, because the authentication 
> scenario is also included. (Feedback is welcome on this.)
> 
> > or WG wants to start with some existing methods and form a 
> design team 
> > to develop an unified method?
> 
> That would remain to be seen.  Multiple proposals are 
> probably also OK.  I would expect at least some small team is 
> going to get together and try to propose at least one solution.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
>