Dear Frank,
RFC 3066 bis is now a local low interest issue, under IESG appeal,
mainly for security considerations.
IRT your so called debate, I do not think that "leaving the things as
they are" is an innovative solution. Now someone has to do the work.
jfc
At 04:33 01/02/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> I hope this list will soon be a IANA managed mailing list,
> or that the IESG requires the WG-ltru to gives it a more
> precise status through RFC 3066 bis (a debate I proposed
> and I was denied).
That's of course not the case, it was debated for quite some
time in "the making of 30066bis":
<http://mid.gmane.org/42B0A3A6(_dot_)7694(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
<http://mid.gmane.org/42B32C25(_dot_)1466(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
Just two examples grepping for "3934" in an LTRU archive.
> I consider that Harald and I are both only trying to do our
> best to clarify a complex issue to the benefit of the users
> and of the IETF. I genuinely hope the IAB decision will help
> us to openly discuss it, taking the necessary time.
Whatever it takes. I like a new IAB draft published recently:
<http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-idn-nextsteps-02>
--
Frank
_______________________________________________
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