Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 13:17:53 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| If you believe there is some sort of process problem here,
I didn't say that. I didn't ever say there was consensus to change
things, just as no-one (other than perhaps, by implication, you in your
recent message, ever claimed there was consensus not to change things).
I did some idle musing, based upon experience of WG's sometimes deferring
their opinion of what is technically best, to demands of the IESG.
But that was never anything more than wondering.
But even if I did believe there was a problem in this case, I
wouldn't bother with ...
| there are appropriate channels for raising such issues.
because it wouldn't matter anyway. Wasting everyone's time debating
process issues that simply don't matter isn't productive. Here, it
doesn't matter, as whatever the WG consensus was, 2026 gives the WG
(and the IESG) no choice in the matter (or not unless someone revises
2026 first).
Of course, the WG can decide to recycle the doc at PS if it wants to.
But so far anyway, I don't think there's been any consideration to that.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
