Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input

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

 



John and others.

On 20/10/2011 10:27, John C Klensin wrote:

> I hate to keep bringing this up, 
[...]
> I recommend that the RFP be withdrawn until modifications such
> as those suggested above can be discussed by the IAOC and
> further input on draft RFP provisions sought from the community.

-1.

Or I disagree completely here and I do not see the need for the RFP to
be withdrawn.

The task is clear, it is to write an ID with the requirements.  The
ID process offers sufficient opportunities for the community to
provide input, it is a matter of finding somebody to hold the pen
and write the document.   I think we should move forward here and
start doing the work, not endlessly discuss the fine details of a
process.

Henk


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
                                          http://www.uijterwaal.nl
                                          Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


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