Re: [ietf-privacy] [Int-area] WG Adoption

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 06/06/2014 08:42, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Brian, in my experience working group adoption is more than the working
> group agreeing to work on the topic.  It is generally the working group
> agreeing that the given document is a good basis for starting the work.
>  Yes, there will almost always be need for improvement.  Sometimes major
> improvement.  But it is an agreement that this is a good starting point.
> 
> Without commenting on the specific document, leaving out that
> consideration in your response to Stephen makes the discussion MUCH harder.

Well, not harder than suggesting immediate /dev/null I think.

Also, there is history here (RFC6269 and RFC6967) so I think it's
clear that the topic is appropriate for the WG. There is a real
problem caused by NAT, compared with the theoretically normal
case where the host's globally unique address is visible to all.

   Brian

> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 6/5/14, 4:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> ...
>> I have to call you on that. WG adoption is not approval. It's agreement
>> to work on a topic. It is not OK to attempt a pocket veto on adoption
>> because you don't like the existing content.
> ...
>