Scott W Brim wrote:
On 07/01/2005 13:02 PM, Ken Carlberg allegedly wrote:
My view is that your impression of the reaction is incorrect. in
taking the position that respondents can be classified as either:
a) being satisfied with the IESG *decision*, b) dissatisfied or
uncomfortable with the decision, or c) could not be clearly
determined by the content of their response, I came up with the
following list.
You can add me to the "satisfied" column. The IESG is asked to take
positions and to lead (despite what a few think). That's risky -- no
matter what they do they get criticism from somewhere. Maybe they
didn't *phrase* the announcement perfectly, but the decision is
correct. Something like this must have a serious, long-term IETF
review. We need to take the overall design of the Internet into
account and not just be administrators.
Count me in too. The IESG might have been more polite
in their answer, but yes, "IESG Review" in an IANA
considerations text means just that, and its not the same
as "FCFS".
--Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf