Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated

ietf

Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated

2007-07-06 14:01:02

Personally I'm in favor of whatever registration rules the IESG thinks
would be best.  I'd like specs to be published, of course, and I'd like
expert review, but I don't want us to depart from standard registration
review rules if that is at all controversial.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Sam Hartman Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Alexey Melnikov Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Jeffrey Altman Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Simon Josefsson Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Sam Hartman Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Jeffrey Altman Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Kurt Zeilenga Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Nicolas Williams <=

Previous by Date:	Re: A new transition plan, was: Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity, John C Klensin
Next by Date:	Re: A new transition plan, was: Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity, Keith Moore
Previous by Thread:	Re: draft-williams-on-channel-binding: IANA rules too complicated, Kurt Zeilenga
Next by Thread:	Re: the evilness of NAT-PT, was: chicago IETF IPv6 connectivity, john . loughney
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]