Hi Alain, The IETF doesn't take decision on face to face meetings, so that should not be a problem, because we can look for consensus in the mailing list.
Furthermore, it is not a new draft, is a new version. It reached consensus in the previous round. Now we took the time and further experience to improve it. I don't see anything wrong in the process, in fact, we should have sent it to the last call in the previous round, so now it may become a new version anyway. I also believe that Fred offered some time in v6ops agenda to discuss about that. I don't think that's again the process, especially considering that most of the people in both WG is the same. Regards, Jordi > De: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Responder a: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Fecha: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:05:27 -0400 > Para: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > CC: <[email protected]> > Conversación: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > Asunto: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > > I do not have an issue (yet?) with the draft. I have an issue with the process > to create a draft about a very controversial issue in a wg that is not meeting > face to face. > > - Alain. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Durand, Alain > Cc: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ipv <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri Jun 08 11:08:51 2007 > Subject: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > > All, > > Durand, Alain wrote: >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:57 PM >>> To: 'Ipv' >>> Subject: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft >>>>> I say wrap it up and ship it. >>> if that's what we're doing, then, i say kill it >> >> This email exchange is the proof that an open discussion is needed. >> The IETF IPv6 wg doing a contraversial thing on its own without >> listening to the input from the operational people is not productive, >> the last thing the community need is yet another power struggle. > > Before this thread gets any deeper in a rat hole, allow me to point out > a few things. > > 1. The discussion of reviving Centrally Assigned ULAs originated in the > RIR community > > 2. A new draft of the spec *with significant changes* is being worked on > > 3. Input for the revised draft is coming from the RIR community > > Rather than assume the contents of the draft and argue their merits, > please wait for the posting of the new draft and then comment. > > Regards, > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
