In theory the idea of trying to recognize a broader class of
sufficiently involved participants sounds good.
The details did not seem to work for me, but I am happy to wait and see
the next version of a specific proposal.
Yours,
Joel
On 2/11/15 11:40 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Actually I thought it had ample support, but just needed some
clarification about how it would work when stretched over longer time
frames.
On Feb 11, 2015 8:34 AM, "Michael Richardson" <mcr+ietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca
<mailto:mcr%2Bietf(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>> wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
<mailto:superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>> wrote:
> (b) Michael's suggestion to re-work eligibility (needs more
discussion or
> an actual text proposal).
So far, I'm not hearing much support or any clear opposition for the
idea.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca
<mailto:mcr%2BIETF(_at_)sandelman(_dot_)ca>>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-