Re: [Autoconf] On WG progress anddraft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model

[Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc at it.uc3m.es>]

Well, since it seems that the obvious should be said (i.e. authors
supporting their own documents :-) ), I think we should not proceed --
at this stage -- with draft-baccelli, and consider first all the
candidate documents that are on the table (i.e., draft-bernardos, which
is surprisingly more aligned with my opinion).

Thanks,

Carlos

On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 09:23 +0100, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
> I suppose I should also mention I support draft-ietf-autoconf-
> adhoc-addr-model as baseline. 
> Emmanuel
> 
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Thomas Heide Clausen
> <ietf at thomasclausen.org> wrote:
>         I guess it's hardly a surprise that I also support this
>         document as baseline..
>         
>         Thomas
>         
>         
>         
>         On Oct 28, 2009, at 7:50 AM, mase wrote:
>         
>                 Fine with me.
>                 
>                 Regards.
>                 Kenichi
>                 
>                 At 15:38 09/10/28, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
>                         o if you think that the WG should proceed with
>                         draft-ietf-autoconf- adhoc-addr-model
>                                               as a baseline, say so!
>                 
>                 
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Autoconf mailing list
>         Autoconf at ietf.org
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>         
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> Autoconf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part