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

Re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue

To: bill <bill@strahm.net>
Subject: Re: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@it.su.se>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 02:07:09 +0200
Cc: "'Steven M. Bellovin'" <smb@research.att.com>, Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com, sob@harvard.edu, iab@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <008d01c3929a$7499c800$70d912c0@mobilebill>
References: <008d01c3929a$7499c800$70d912c0@mobilebill>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

bill wrote:
| I'd like to ask an interesting question that might help the IETF, but
| not this debate unfortunately.
|
| The meta question is how did we get into a state where some people have
| very conflicting views on how well this topic was adjusted (discussed

A contributing factor might be that starting with Yokohama and certainly
by SF the issue had attracted attention by people who don't normaly pay
close tabs to ipv6. Why that is is a separate discussion. That is why
(imo) we saw the confusion - suddenly the all the people in the room
and on the list were not speaking the same language or driven by the
same motivation (for good and/or bad).

	Cheers leifj
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/jI+s8Jx8FtbMZncRAgfKAKCsOPca/T2ozbxnaWJAbPF0tmBlpgCgkEgM
+SD0INMitSQ0LOtqlKY9vDs=
=ziFz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- RE: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue
  - From: "bill" <bill@strahm.net>

Prev by Date: RE: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue
Next by Date: evaluation: draft-ietf-pkix-pi
Previous by thread: RE: Appeal to the IAB on the site-local issue
Next by thread: Evaluation: draft-rajeshkumar-mmusic-gpmd-03.txt to Proposed Standard
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread