<l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't think it's a problem that a draft gets adopted as a WG item
>> that is incomplete in a variety of ways, including security
>> considerations.
>>
>> Let's not continue the trend to having a WG design team prior to
>> having a WG.
> perpass is not a WG, and draft-farrell-perpass-attack is not an adopted
> WG item.
I think that Melinda is making a general statement about WG processes, not
one related to perpass. Perhaps I'm wrong here.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-
Attachment:
pgpY9xNG3CGC6.pgp
Description: PGP signature