George Michaelson wrote:
> This document doesn't recognise the reality of how language and names
> develop.
>
> This area is something which is best left to be 'standardised' after
> the fact, once the community has already decided what it calls the
> address/parts.
>
> We are not the 'Academie
This document doesn't recognise the reality of how language and names develop.
This area is something which is best left to be 'standardised' after the fact,
once the community has already decided what it calls the address/parts.
We are not the 'Academie Franciais' -There is no work for the IET
I don't see a lot of consensus on either the urgency or the solution.
Some say whatever they're using now is fine for them. Others say they
don't like the proposed names. I think this draft could possibly be
published as an informational suggestion, but we should let the
"problem" ripen for a whi
I regret to say that I find the proposal in this I-D confusing,
likely to increase confusion, and also likely to create avoidable
complexity in other IPv6 WG documents. I don't believe the
claimed problem described in the draft is an actual problem,
either now or during the past ~15 years of IPv6
Hi all,
I would like to officially ask that our draft is accepted as a WG
item. If it's accepted, we get out of the stale-mate and if it's
rejected, I can stop wasting time on it :)
Afaik, this will be decided upon at the next IETF conference?
Thanks,
Richard
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/dra
