Hi,
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> > Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them
> > are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the
> > IETF's role to produce vendor requirements documents. The considerations
> > that the IETF deals with are primarily technical, and "we want this stuff
> > from our vendors" is not a technical issue.****
> >
> > *[Med] With all due respect, you are keeping the same argument since the
> > initial call for adoption and you seem ignore we are not in that stage.
> > That?s not fair at all.*
> >
> I'm just saying it here so that everyone in the community can see it. If
> it's an IETF document it has to have IETF consensus, and since I feel that
> the arguments were not properly taken into account in the WG (read:
> ignored), I think it's important that the community see them before we
> publish this document.
+1
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
