On 15-sep-2005, at 9:57, Pekka Nikander wrote:
So, as I state in my little web page, I think we really should
work hard to create a new waist for the architecture. I, of
course, have my own theory where the new waist should be and how
it should be implemented,
Well, don't be shy: where
On 16-sep-2005, at 23:55, Bill Manning wrote:i am convinced that the IETF has no business telling me what routes i may or may not accept from or send to my peers, with the exception of prefixes of undefined BEHAVIOUR, much like the IPv4 class "E" space. That said, if these are Guidelines, as the
I understand the concerns you express. What surprises me with the
IETF is the lack of methodology (at least for a French brain). This
seems to fit the model since it works: it then should be preserved,
at least in part. This may also be one of the systemic root of the
problem. Brian introduces
Thanks to John for his long and considered note. Two short responses inline
before
I have to sign off for the weekend:
At 12:36 AM -0400 9/17/05, John C Klensin wrote:
>Ted,
>
>I finding myself agreeing with you in many ways, but probably
>for different reasons. I'm trying to better formulate t
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, IETF Chair wrote:
This note describes a method of starting the next phase of IETF
IETF process change, possibly including updating the change process
itself.
FWIW, I think this approach makes sense.
In all process WGs (or BOFs) I have participated (ipr, newtrk, icar,
mpow
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, IETF Chair wrote:
The RAI Area is seeded with existing working groups from the Transport
and Applications Area: SIP, SIPPING, XCON, SIMPLE, GEOPRIV, ECRIT, ENUM,
IPTEL, MEGACO, MMUSIC, IEPREP, SPEECHSC, and SIGTRAN. A good rule of
thumb for the incorporation of new work into
