Re: Request to advance rfc4214(bis) to standards-track through ADsponsorship

[David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 09:36:19AM -0700, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >     Either PS means something, in which
> > 	case there is no rush, or it doesn't (in which case there
> > 	is also no rush).
> 
> I can't say more about my customer or their use case, but
> from my vantage point I have to respectfully disagree.

	While I understand that there and will continue to be
	proprietary use cases, but such use cases seem a
	particularly opaque reason for rushing to PS status
	(especially given the somewhat dubious value of the PS
	designation itself). 

	Not to put to fine a point on it, but IMO the IETF needs
	more transparency (at every level), not less. 

	--dmm

Attachment: pgpobccJDU1sh.pgp
Description: PGP signature