note the discomfort with using the EXP code point. This is indirectly
a matter of extensive debate in the PCN WG. My own view is that the
solution is as suggested, make the CL-edge-behaviour draft Experimental
rather than Informational.
Tom Taylor, Editor
On 27/05/2011 4:38 PM, The IESG wrote
Here are our considered responses, generated while I am still editing
the -16 version, but I think they'll stick.
Tom Taylor
On 09/03/2011 7:08 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ
athttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org
Thanks for your comments.
On 09/03/2011 7:08 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ
athttp://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
I think Andrew makes a lot of sense. I really can't envision a situation where
the IETF would want to change licence terms en masse, given the impact Andrew
demonstrates on deployed or ready-to-deploy product.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:52:30AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern
