Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050627184615.04998020@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:50:55 +0200
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <42C016FD.6060600@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <200506241708.j5OH8PSa010808@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
	<23532.1119646991@munnari.OZ.AU>
	<1119652896.5791.21.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<42BECEB0.2010907@zurich.ibm.com>
	<1119803976.5791.198.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<42C016FD.6060600@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: lroberts@packet.cc, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

At 17:10 27/06/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I'm not sure I understand your question. This is the IETF so
>we take decisions by on line deliberation inside the IESG
>just as much as any WG does, and the minutes or IESG announcements
>are the public record. And this decision, and the formulation
>of the response to IANA and the announcement, took a number
>of weeks. We agreed apart from final wordsmithing in the May 26
>meeting (agenda item 6.2).

Dear Brian,
what seems odd, is that during all these weeks Dr. Roberts has not been 
informed and able to come back with a definiton like "experimental private 
code points 0 to F" and document through a Draft the need to have the 
possibility of experimenting innovation?
jfc


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf