Yes, do it. Maybe get an IABer to the WG meeting to explain. Brian
Bob Hinden wrote: > > The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the IESG decision > to approve the IPv6 Addressing Architecture > (draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that the document > should not be published as a Draft Standard [1]. Given that the revised > document is a significant improvement over RFC 2473, and that RFC2473 is > badly out of date, we believe it is desirable to go ahead and publish the 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? > > Bob Hinden, Margaret Wasserman; IPv6 Chairs > Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark; Internet ADs > > [1] IAB, "Re: Appeal against IESG decision", > http://www.iab.org/Appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
