I agree with Keith that the vote meant stop using SLs. I don't think
there is any reason to believe the vote was taken to answer the question
stop using SLs because XXX. People often choose to vote the same way as
others on a specific issue for many different reasons.
We could have asked several
In case there was any doubt that the WG has no clue what the vote
meant,
The vote meant we're going to stop using SLs, IMHO because it became
clear that whatever problems SLs were supposed to solve, they weren't
worth the cost.
We haven't voted on what solutions we were going to recommend for the
[Dropped the IESG...]
At 11:39 AM 8/26/2003 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Agreed. No replacement is also a replacement. That said, I think there is
a lot left to discuss on what to recommend for the cases that have been
brought up.
I agree. There are a number of situations (disconnected
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hain
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:36 AM
To: 'Steven M. Bellovin'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Tony -- to make life easier for all concerned
In case there was any doubt that the WG has no clue what the vote
meant,
The vote meant we're going to stop using SLs, IMHO because it became
clear that whatever problems SLs were supposed to solve, they weren't
worth the cost.
We haven't voted on what solutions we were going to recommend for
Tony,
there was strong concensus in the WG to deprecate SL. by asking for
this declaration to be repealed you are asking for your own will and the
will of a small minority to override the consensus of this WG and the
extended IETF community. not only would this be a grave technical
error, it
I support what Brian stated and the ADs please lets move on here.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 10:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: AD response to Site-Local Appeal
Tim Chown wrote:
It's all on video. Memories and recollections are not required :)
Are you saying that my recollectons are wrong?
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:
there was strong concensus in the WG to deprecate SL.
No, there was a question asked where there would be multiple undefined
meanings for a Yes vote, and multiple undefined meanings for a No vote.
nope. the question asked was whether we should deprecate SL, and there
was strong consensus to
On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
there was strong concensus in the WG to deprecate SL.
No, there was a question asked where there would be multiple undefined
meanings for a Yes vote, and multiple undefined meanings for a No vote.
Basically a blank check for the
It's all on video. Memories and recollections are not required :)
Tim
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:10:21AM +0200, Leif Johansson wrote:
Tony Hain wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Tony,
there was strong concensus in the WG to deprecate SL.
No, there was a question asked where
Tony Hain wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
Tony,
there was strong concensus in the WG to deprecate SL.
No, there was a question asked where there would be multiple undefined
meanings for a Yes vote, and multiple undefined meanings for a No vote.
Basically a blank check for the chair to tell
Date:Sun, 03 Aug 2003 12:33:08 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not planning on debating these issues here, again, so just this
one message...
| An initial draft agenda, which did list the local addressing
|
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
[Note: This message is being sent in my role as an IPv6 WG chair.
I have already recused myself from IESG consideration of Tony
Hain's appeal and will not participate in this discussion as an
Internet AD.]
Hi Robert,
I'd like to respond to a few of the things that you mentioned in
your
fwiw - I fully agree with kre
(that has happened before in case anyone wondered)
Scott
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:
Dear IESG members.
When considering Tony Hain's appeal (which was in the message
referenced in the References header of this message), there
are a few more points that he didn't mention that you may wish
to take into account when determining whether or not there were
procedural irregularities.
Tony -- to make life easier for all concerned, please state explicitly
what recourse you're asking for from the IESG. As things stand now,
even if we agreed with everything you say, we wouldn't know exactly
what you want us to do.
--Steve Bellovin,
18 matches
Mail list logo
