On 06/06/2014 08:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Brian, in my experience working group adoption is more than the working
group agreeing to work on the topic. It is generally the working group
agreeing that the given document is a good basis for starting the work.
Yes, there will almost always be need for improvement. Sometimes major
improvement. But it is an agreement that this is a good starting point.
Without commenting on the specific document, leaving out that
consideration in your response to Stephen makes the discussion MUCH harder.
Well, not harder than suggesting immediate /dev/null I think.
Also, there is history here (RFC6269 and RFC6967) so I think it's
clear that the topic is appropriate for the WG. There is a real
problem caused by NAT, compared with the theoretically normal
case where the host's globally unique address is visible to all.
Brian
Yours,
Joel
On 6/5/14, 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
because you don't like the existing content.
...
___
ietf-privacy mailing list
ietf-privacy@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-privacy
