> > > A small comment when it comes to understand > documents: > > I have realized that it is popular in > standardization organizations to > be temporarly and selectively confused about some > things. > > I suspect that you can copy-and-paste Sam's mail, > replace PANA with > another protocol and working group name, post it to > the IETF mailing > list and you might get a similar response. > Agreed. Perhaps, we should do this all working groups in the IETF. I have no doubt in my mind that this list will be flooded with countless *opinions*. Perhaps, PANA is the first one on the list and others to follow soon.. -mohan > > I would find it particularly helpful to have a > concise > > statement from someone > > who says that PANA will not work. Cannot be > implemented > > (properly) by virtue of > > technical errors or documentation too confusing to > > > understand. Or cannot be > > deployed and used, by virtue of administrative > complexity or, again, > > documentation too confusing to understand. > > > > Absent this, I will ask why it is productive to > note that the > > emperor is > > pursuing an idiosynchratic sartorial style? > > Sam accidently posted his mail shortly after the > heated discussion of > PANA usage at the 3GPP2. > >From the comments on this mailing list it is > obvious which company was > not favor for PANA (for whatever reason). > > Ciao > Hannes > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf