Re: [Ianaplan] CWG draft and its impact on the IETF

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 21/05/15 15:04, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 02:51:35PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> So I'd be interested in hearing from other folks who agree
>> with what might be the position Milton has (after all the
>> overstatement is discounted:-). Or who think that the IETF
>> ought do something directly involving the PTI (e.g. to
>> re-open the MoU to change the partner involved or something.)
> 
> I don't know that Avri's message actually meets those criteria, but it
> is in my opinion the clearest and best statement of the argument in
> this thread as to why the IETF might want to get involved in PTI
> directly.  (I, for one, appreciated it.)

I also read Avri's message but she didn't seem to be arguing
that we ought do any specific thing now. And when I read that
I mostly thought: "hmm, sounds like we should let the CWG thing
play out and if a PTI is setup we should see how that pans
out and in the meantime, doing nothing (for the IETF) seems
right."

S.


> 
> A
>