RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
- To: "Dawson, Martin" <Martin.Dawson at andrew.com>, "John Schnizlein" <jschnizl at cisco.com>, "Andrew Newton" <andy at hxr.us>
- Subject: RE: [Geopriv] Confirmation of GEOPRIV IETF 68 Working Group Hums
- From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk at cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:30:38 -0500
- Authentication-results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
- Cc: GEOPRIV WG <geopriv at ietf.org>, ietf at ietf.org, Allison Mankin <mankin at psg.com>
- Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=533; t=1177018245; x=1177882245; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Geopriv]=20Confirmation=20of=20GEOPRIV=20IETF=2068=2 0Working=20Group=0A=20=20Hums |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Dawson, =20Martin=22=20<Martin.Dawson@andrew.com>, =0A=20=20=20=2 0=20=20=20=20=22John=20Schnizlein=22=20<jschnizl@cisco.com>, =20=22Andrew=2 0Newton=22=20<andy@hxr.us>; bh=iR4tXFCW1nG5RZIa0S314j68uRajHvKG7ie3iU+eDLs=; b=UFF0Y4Xs3avZWlnjZYP5z8zhPyOtscGiYeWSK6h4dQSxMd4PW0kTuzwOoKw/ESwFwVfTpolG 5SjJsd1FciBsZJFYA8MFe+5NyxQhyxdvf70QYyxaoOTwLpZqpbyvtb9R;
- In-reply-to: <EB921991A86A974C80EAFA46AD428E1E028F9FE1@aopex4.andrew.com >
- List-help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
- List-id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
- List-post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <4EF2211E-17D0-4E44-B82B-C68F4523BF23@cisco.com> <EB921991A86A974C80EAFA46AD428E1E028F9FE1@aopex4.andrew.com>
At 04:20 PM 4/19/2007, Dawson, Martin wrote:
"DHCP is not adequate because it doesn't meet multiple sets of
requirements as documented multiple times ..."
bologna
"documented multiple times" means in individual submissions
of which, zero facts were presented to substantiate
If DHCP were so inadequate, why is the DSL forum now going to specify
it? Why does PacketCable define it? These were fairly recent moves...
And, how many times has HELD been presented as if it were a product
of an IETF WG?
James
_______________________________________________
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.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
