Hi all, I can just say that it is true that in Dublin there was not a clear consensus but it is not fair to say "there was as much of an opposition as there was support to work on this." The opposition was on the fact that Diversion was not an IETF draft (as expired) but many people was saying that this argument was not valid because there is still the possibility to edit the draft as historical.
Regards Marianne -----Message d'origine----- De : Shida Schubert [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : vendredi 13 mars 2009 01:01 À : Hadriel Kaplan Cc : MOHALI Marianne RD-CORE-ISS; Jason Fischl; [email protected] Objet : Re: [BLISS] TR: New Version Notification for draft-mohali-diversion-history-info-01 Hi Hadriel; As far as I know there was no clear consensus on the way forward of this draft, and as you may recall, there was as much of an opposition as there was support to work on this. Only thing I believe we agreed on was that, if we were to discuss the draft, we were to use BLISS mailing list until we know what we are doing. Regards Shida On 13-Mar-09, at 3:48 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > Hi Marianne and BLISS Chairs, > Why was this submitted as an individual-draft again and not a > Working-Group draft? > > Didn't we have consensus in Dublin to make this a BLISS WG Item? > > If we want to make History-Info the new white meat, we have to provide > a transition mechanism. That transition mechanism can either be done > differently by every system, or be done the same way. > > -hadriel _______________________________________________ BLISS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss
