Re: [sidr] I-D Action:draft-ietf-sidr-ta-00.txt

[Danny McPherson <danny at tcb.net>]

On Mar 24, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Terry Manderson wrote:

> Do I think that process was side-stepped in this draft going  
> straight to WG status and not via an individual submission? Maybe,  
> but I do observe that while there was objection regarding the Co- 
> chairs decision I suspect it would be process alone that would  
> require a token individual submission before becoming a WG item. So  
> its not going to burn me if it stays as a WG item. Equally if it  
> serves the proper and just process to make it a indv. submission I  
> can go there too as a WG participant.

My point was that process was not followed - it had nothing
to do with the content of the draft.

Given the contentiousness of this topic and the importance
and architectural implications therein, I maintain my position
that process needs to be followed here.  Something that you or
the chairs believe is trivial may well be of considerable
concern to others more or less informed.

-danny