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. > ... > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
