![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Oh, great...
From the abstract:
any assertions of scarcity to restrict registrations must be accompanied by a plan for eliminating the scarcity problem, and that, if such a plan is not possible, to establish criteria for making decisions that are as specific and objective as possible.
Spencer
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema at windows.microsoft.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:58 AM
I think as has already been suggested we are having two differentit
discussions masquerade as one. I obviously can't speak for Robert but
seems to me he is not saying the IESG ought to approve every (or any)the
extension of IP, he is merely saying each should have an option number
assigned. Why assign a dangerous, harmful protocol an option? For
awaresame reason sex offenders in the US have to register - so everyone can be
of their presence and take the appropriate precautions.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.