draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-02.txt

[Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>]

The minutes from the London meeting were just posted. I'd told the chair 
well in advance that I would not be at the meeting. My work and travel 
schedule often do not permit me to make all 3 IETF meetings in a given year.

At the previous meeting the chair asked if there was interest in the draft, 
and there appeared strong support. I've received a LOT of comments and 
feedback on this draft, and there seems to be support. I am confused by the 
chair's comments, as reported by the scribe, that if there isn't strong 
support, the draft will be discarded.

If the WG doesn't have any interest in this draft, I will resubmit it once 
again as an independent submission. It's not going to be "discarded" as 
such. I will continue to push this document with or without the WG.

Whether the document's focus is the same as it originally was is arguable. 
At Minneapolis, there was strong support for having the document discourage 
the use of INADDR as a security mechanism, yet continue to push people to 
implement INADDR.

I'd like to get a sense of whether the WG wants me to continue this 
document under the auspices of the group, or take it back to individual 
contribution status, where it started.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        dts@senie.com
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com