Melinda Shore wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: >> And I don't know why you think that the discussion is "already headed" >> toward policy when the group isn't even chartered yet. Certainly the >> discussion on the IETF list isn't "already headed" that way. > > You can call it "foo" for all I care, but much of what's > been discussed so far is policy. From the proposed > charter: > > "A host connected to multiple networks has to make decisions about > default router selection, address selection, DNS server selection, > choice of interface for packet transmission, and the treatment of > configuration information received from the various networks. Some > configuration objects are global to the node, some are local to the > interface, and some are related to a particular prefix. Various issues > arise when multiple configuration objects that are global to the node > are received on different interfaces. At best, decisions about these > matters have an efficiency effect. At worst, they have more significant > effects such as security impacts, or even lead to communication not > being possible at all." > > That's all policy. you're arguing that the charter should stay as it is because the charter says what it says? sounds circular to me. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf