Yes, makes sense also to me.
BR,
-Juha W.-
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 February, 2003 02:39
> we believe it is desirable to go ahead and publish the
> document as a Proposed Standard at this time ASAP in order
> to get a replacement to RFC2473 out.
> In parallel, it would be appropriate to discuss the details
> of the IAB response and how the WG wishes to respond to the
> IAB recommendations. Note that approving the document as PS
> at this time does not imply that the WG agrees with all of
> the IAB's recommendations nor does it preclude any particular
> follow-on action by the WG or IESG. However, approval at PS
> is something that can be done relatively quickly.
> Does this approach make sense to the WG?
Does to me.
Michel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
