Paul Hoffman writes: > Please note that the conclusion of this survey was that the WG was > not going to adopt the document. The chairs asked that the authors > set up their own discussion fora if they want to continue > discussion. Announcing new versions of non-WG drafts on this list is > fine, but trying to keep the discussion alive here is not.
I do not agree on that. The ipsec is the ietf list for ipsec related discussion. It was originally for ipsec WG and when IPsecME was formed we decided to use same mailing list, and I think that at point the idea was that mailing list should be used with all ipsec related discussions. The discussion about those draft has not been that overwhelming that we would need to create separate mailing list for that. If you are going to say that most of the active working group participants (I think most of the really active working group participants did answer to question, but there might be few missing) are not enough for draft to be working group document, and then you say that we cannot even discuss it on the ipsec list I think that is not ok. I do not want to joining several different mailing list for short time to discuss about each draft the chairs feel should not be adopted on the wg and then the lists would most likely be silent forever (except of course the mandatory spams). -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
