Note that I am Bcc'ing the IETF list on this response. If you really want to follow up to this message and re-include the IETF, that's your choice, but I have done this to indicate my feeling that further public discussion is unwarranted. I am certainly happy to have private discussions on the matter. On 4/16/02 at 10:07 AM -0700, todd glassey wrote: >This is a serious allegation that merits investigation I think The allegation is neither serious nor worthy of investigation. I have never heard any of the proponents of IPv4 variants claim that they were able to garner consensus in the IETF and in the face of that the IESG shut them down. What they do say is that they believe they had a better idea than the IETF and that the IETF ignored them. Life's tough. The fact that the IETF as a whole came to the rough consensus that they didn't want to work on one particular proposal is not censorship. Everyone who participates in a discussion with the IETF is a member of the IETF, including those folks who proposed IPv4 variants. That they couldn't get rough consensus for their proposals is not problematic. pr -- Pete Resnick <mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com> QUALCOMM Incorporated