Yes. Seems odd to have procedure for making procedures and everything else
but nothing formal about an umbrella organization that sits between us and
the real world. Seems counter to the well documented openess that seems to
be a core tenent of everything else that goes on.
-T
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Paul
Hoffman / VPNC
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 1:29 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report
At 7:57 PM +0200 9/6/04, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
It seems to me that we are rapidly converging on one point of total
IETF consensus:
Putting the IETF administrative function under ISOC requires a
documented IETF-ISOC agreement (call it an MoU, a contract or
something else - it IS a document, it IS an agreement and it DOES have
two parties).
Agreed?
Agreed.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf