The draft says three ADs, 10:2 could pass. Was this alternative
procedure ever used ?
Rarely if ever, but we have come close several times and found
a compromis instead.
I'm a bit perplexed that there's no timeout
for a pending DISCUSS. Nothing rush, a year or so, enough time to
discuss i
We almost used the alternative procedure on the DHCP civil addresses
draft. We almost used the alternative procedure on the unique local
addresses draft.
We used the alternate procedure on both PR actions even though they
are not really drafts.
___
Iet
Sam Hartman wrote:
We almost used the alternative procedure on the DHCP civil addresses
draft. We almost used the alternative procedure on the unique local
addresses draft.
Right, but the keyword is "almost".
We used the alternate procedure on both PR actions even though they
are not really
Sam Hartman writes:
> david filed the following discuss on Brian's draft to rescind 3683.
> David is concerned that the IETF consensus is not strong enough to
> approve this draft.
> We definitely could use your feedback on this issue.
I am already on record as opposing the adoption of an earlie
Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam Hartman writes:
>
>> David filed the following discuss on Brian's draft to rescind 3683.
>> David is concerned that the IETF consensus is not strong enough to
>> approve this draft.
>
>> We definitely could use your feedback on this issue.
>
> I am alre
John,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 07:14:41PM -0400, John Leslie wrote:
> Ned Freed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > RFC 3683 defines _two_ different types of Posting Rights Actions
> > (PR-Actions): Ones to rescind posting rights and ones to _restore_
> > previously rescinded rights...
>
>Indee
