Michel, I don't get it. Nobody suggested pulling back the approved draft. We already know there will be a new version of the addressing architecture due to the IAB comments. There is plenty of time to follow due process, if we get consensus on what we want to do.
So I just don't get what you are upset about. Brian Michel Py wrote: > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Exactly. It was the present incarnation, not some > > possible future incarnation, that I raised my hand > > against. > > Really? By trying to sneak a major architectural change into a last 24 > hour "editorial" change? I am going to file an appeal about how this > entire situation was handled on the first place. > > What kind of work is that? Gathering consensus on a text that nobody has > seen because it does not exist yet? This consensus has no value and I > will now push this issue all the way to the top. > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
