Scott Bradner wrote: > > fwiw - I fully agree with kre > (that has happened before in case anyone wondered)
fwiw, I don't (and I have both agreed and disagreed with kre and sob in the past). I really think this is a distraction. Objectively, the WG is getting on with the three things that need to be done (requirements, an alternative proposal, and a draft deprecation document). To me there was manifestly rough consensus for this course of action: what else could "deprecate site local" mean to anyone who had been reading the mailing list for the previous several months? The details naturally depend on those three documents, which will have to be taken through due process. There was certainly not unanimity, or a detailed proposal, when choosing this course of action, but that's no ground for overruling the chairs. Brian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------