[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal

To: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Subject: Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:42:54 -0400
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, iesg@ietf.org, ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
In-reply-to: <02de01c36b2d$6826f5f0$63124104@eagleswings>
References: <090801c3585b$c2879700$70144104@eagleswings><02de01c36b2d$6826f5f0$63124104@eagleswings>

> In case there was any doubt that the WG has no clue what the vote
> meant,

The vote meant we're going to stop using SLs, IMHO because it became
clear that whatever problems SLs were supposed to solve, they weren't
worth the cost.

We haven't voted on what solutions we were going to recommend for the
problems that people claimed (sometiemes erroneously) that SL addressed.
We haven't even agreed on what those problems are, or whether they all
really exist.

Keith

Follow-Ups:
- Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
  - From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
- Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
  - From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>

References:
- RE: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
  - From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>

Prev by Date: Dealing with your IESG appeal
Next by Date: IAB informal telechat
Previous by thread: RE: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
Next by thread: Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread