Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Brian E Carpenter wrote:

grenville armitage wrote:
...

My only concern is that we're using codepoint assignment denial as a means of protecting the Internet from poor, TCP-unfriendly end2end algorithms.


Who's "we"? The IESG said that the IESG wasn't going to approve a codepoint,
and that the only way to get it approved would be IETF consensus.

My copy of the email announcing the IESG's decision to decline the
option codepoint assignment request ended with the text: "So, the IESG
declines the assignment request and recommends against pursuing this
proposal within the IETF."

It is a shame that the sentence didn't end immediately after the
words "....declines the assignment request."  The rest of the sentence
(in the context of the editorialising which preceded it) has a distinctly
chilling feel.

(I'll leave this thread now to people who can actually change things. Just
wanted to, perhaps, ground the discussion in its origins.)

cheers,
gja

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]