Subject: RE: A use for site local addresses?

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:05:04 -0800

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Exactly. It was the present incarnation, not some
> possible future incarnation, that I raised my hand
> against.

Really? By trying to sneak a major architectural change into a last 24
hour "editorial" change? I am going to file an appeal about how this
entire situation was handled on the first place.

What kind of work is that? Gathering consensus on a text that nobody has
seen because it does not exist yet? This consensus has no value and I
will now push this issue all the way to the top.

Michel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:37:39 +0200

Michel,

I don't get it. Nobody suggested pulling back the approved draft.
We already know there will be a new version of the addressing
architecture due to the IAB comments. There is plenty of time 
to follow due process, if we get consensus on what we want to do.

So I just don't get what you are upset about.

   Brian