Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

[Randy Bush <[e-mail]>]

i have scanned and support adoption of the draft as a wg item.

>> My understanding is that this is perfectly compatible with the IETF
>> standards process, as long as this restriction is removed before posting
>> as draft-ietf (for instance, I guess that's why it's allowed in the
>> first place). (this restriction will be removed in the upcoming
>> draft-ietf version, accordingly)
> It is allowed and I don't want to start a big IPR thread here, but I
> think the intent for this clause (no derivative works) is for work
> that someone wants to present to a w.g. that was not intended to be an
> IETF work item.  My opinion is that it's not appropriate for documents
> intended to become an IETF work item as yours was.

i beg to differ.  i have used the restrictive clause for years exactly
as fernando states.  if the wg does not adopt, then i may take *my*
marbles and go home.

randy