> I am fine with that it is the sense that this new group can over-rule > the IETF process that is all.
I don't believe anyone ever suggested this would be the case. > A PS has to have continued technical > review and Thomas could have expressed his concerns in the IPv6 WG. Note: this document isn't going for PS, the IPv6 WG previously had issues with that, and it is now targetted for experimental. And, I did bcc the IPv6 wg with my note (though the note got mangled before appearing), there was no intention to exclude them. But as my note made clear, I think the issues go beyond the IPv6 WG, which is why I didn't see it appropriate to discuss only within the IPv6 WG. Thomas _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
