[Ltru] Wild card prefixes

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Thu, 12 March 2009 20:57 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=etNEc8gBsYYabt+gQOCf4r2SUDf81WYbMjLLlbMhaKeaOTz4S/G8YtmYhw6pUNB9; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Message-ID: <00dd01c9a355$61153fe0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: ltru@ietf.org
References: <BLU109-W49EF95306EFBACF120769AB39F0@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:59:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Ltru] Wild card prefixes
Precedence: list

Hi -

(Subject line changed to reflect the subject.  PLEASE use a
new subject line when you introduce a new issue!)

> From: "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
> To: <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Geocoordinates
...
> What is going to happen to the suggestion we allow wild cards
> to be registered as prefixes & incorporate that into the next 
> draft of RFC 4646?  
>
> Is that tabled too?  Or was that never an option?; I recall only
> Doug's saying that this addition was too late for the current
> edition of 4646 & not that it would never be an option:
...

As co-chair:

There was no consensus to make such a change, and it was clear
from the discussion that the text that at one time could be read as
permitting them was not intended to do so.

Your options, if you wish to pursue this:
 (1) you can appeal the decision on procedural grounds, claiming
       the co-chairs did not properly read WG consensus
 (2) you can appeal the decision on technical grounds, claiming
       that interoperability will be harmed by the failure to add this
       new feature
 (3) you can raise the issue in IETF last call, but you'd have to
      be able to convince the IETF at large that the working group
      got it wrong.

I think pursuing this issue would be unproductive.

Randy