It seems to us that there is no further research possible within the
scope of ASRG for this draft, considering its narrow focus. As it stands
now, the proper forum for this discussion would probably be the IETF.
Therefore, what we would suggest, is to submit the draft to the IETF as
a independent submission and then shift the discussion there. The proper
forum for this discussion would either be the main IETF mailing list (as
a starting point), or the ietf-822 mailing list
(http://www.imc.org/ietf-822/index.html). If the IETF sends it back to
us, then we can continue discussing it here.
Surely Eric can submit it *independently* whenever he likes? He doesn't
need you to tell him to. Are you trying to say that further discussion by
the group won't be appreciated - that there's no way such a proposal would
get group support? Or perhaps support by the chairs is the issue, in that
support for labelling is seen as support for a particular law?
Maybe I've got this wrong, and I'm eager to be corrected - surely the
output of this group is going to be (in part) IDs recommended to the IETF
by the group.
How about if references to any particular "law", were removed? Would it
then be suitable matter for evaluation here and eventual recommendation to
the IETF by this group?
And if not, why not?
I'd be grateful if the chairs could take the trouble to respond to this.
Thanks,
JK
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg