Agreed. It was cited for your reply to the original post.
Apologies to all if the was misleading.
Joe On Sep 10, 2023, at 12:39 PM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Joe,
I did not propose the DTN change of area and I did not agree to any WG affected issue, because I accept that IESG change areas but not WG affects.
As a secondary observation, (IMO) DTN has always been essentially a cross between email and routing. Aspects of the former have already been reinvented in DTN (to no particular benefit IMO) and the key remaining issues are routing. So I see no good reason to move it to INT vs one of those two (notably, at this time, routing).
That’s probably not isolated - lots of WGs may be better suited to other areas, either by accident or by having an idea “shopped around” until an area accepts it - but that sort of cleanup should be ongoing, not part of a single one-time reconsideration such as this.
Joe
— Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
No I did not propose that you are mistaken.
Hope you read again the list,
AB
|
