Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:16:56 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <42C07AD8.5050502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| Yakov Rekhter wrote:
| > What was the reason(s) the request was made for an assignment
| > that required IESG Approval, rather than either Specification
| > Required or First Come First Serve ?
|
| RFC 2780 (BCP 37).
I'm not sure that was really the question Yakov was answering, but
then again, I'm not sure what that was, so perhaps...
| If there had been an I-D it would have been easier.
Easier to do what? The IESG rejected the request because it did
not like the protocol it was proposed to be used with. How could
the format of the presentation of the protocol possibly make a difference
to that?
I would assume that even if the protocol were presented to a WG as an I-D,
and approved by the WG, and IETF last call, the IESG would still have refused
publication, and consequenlyly the parameter assignment by IANA - after all,
the IESG apparently believes this protocol (whatever it is) would do harm
to the internet, and presumably, IPv6.
Do you have any idea what you're really saying, or are you just looking
for excuses to attempt to justify the IESG's bizarre and inexcusable actions?
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf