Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In my opinion, your concerns challenge the consensus in the WG, so I can't
> change the text unilaterally. I'll leave it up to our AD what he wants to
> do with these objections.
...
> Path 1 absolutely
> includes a bunch of lurkers that don't actively participate in the life of
> the IETF, but then those people are not going to volunteer anyway.
while I agree with you, "not going to volunteer" anyway, I think that we need
to think about attacks here. I think that path 1 has been sufficiently
robust against attacks, and the WG discussed the online change to it.
>> Additional remark:
>>
>> -- Section 4: I understand we're talking about IETF, but I see no reason to
>> ignore IRTF altogether in Path 2 (section 4). Beeing a Research Group
>> Chair or
>> Secretary is also sign of being part of the active community.
>>
> I would not object to this, if others agreed.
I also would not object to clarifying that it includes IRTF activites, and
even IAB programs.
However, perfect might be the enemy of good enough, and time is of the
essence at this point.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
