Brian E Carpenter wrote: > How true. I'd be more than happy to forget the hain/templin > draft if we can get this agreed quickly. The IETF has > developed a silly habit of getting hung up on requirements > drafts; maybe we should just not bother.
In many cases I agree. Yet one of the justifications for the vote in SF was that 'SL did not meet the requirements', but there was no documentation of the requirements. That is specifically why I put my initial draft together. If we all agree that a general purpose solution to the range of problems covered in the current draft is necessary, I for one would be happy to drop it. Unfortunately there appear to be a persistant few that refuse to acknowledge that some network managers are under different operating constraints than they are. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
