A small comment when it comes to understand
documents:
I have realized that it is popular in
standardization organizations to
be temporarly and selectively confused about some
things.
I suspect that you can copy-and-paste Sam's mail,
replace PANA with
another protocol and working group name, post it to
the IETF mailing
list and you might get a similar response.
Agreed. Perhaps, we should do this all working
groups in the IETF. I have no doubt in my mind
that this list will be flooded with countless
*opinions*. Perhaps, PANA is the first one
on the list and others to follow soon..
-mohan
I would find it particularly helpful to have a
concise
statement from someone
who says that PANA will not work. Cannot be
implemented
(properly) by virtue of
technical errors or documentation too confusing to
understand. Or cannot be
deployed and used, by virtue of administrative
complexity or, again,
documentation too confusing to understand.
Absent this, I will ask why it is productive to
note that the
emperor is
pursuing an idiosynchratic sartorial style?
Sam accidently posted his mail shortly after the
heated discussion of
PANA usage at the 3GPP2.
From the comments on this mailing list it is
obvious which company was
not favor for PANA (for whatever reason).
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
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