Re: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person

[Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>]

Yes, certainly in some cases.

I don't want to go out on a limb and state guidelines for the IETF in 
this regard, but I will address my comments and why I stated them as 
the chair here.

When a discussion on a topic threatens to derail the process of 
defining a protocol from meeting the stated objectives, I think it is 
time to step in.  In our case, we have RFC 3375 plus a statement that 
you have labelled 'IESG fiat.'  Regarding the latter, the WG has 
adopted (a consensus) that the statement, with refinements, is a 
requirement in a recent thread.  Therefore, the 'fiat' has become a 
requirement too, albeit not included in RFC 3375.  (I suspect that 
there won't be an effort to update 3375 just for that.)

Also, it should be noted that my statements are directed at focusing 
the effort to achieve just the depth we need and not more.  I did not 
make any feature requests or edits to the requirements.

At 11:54 -0400 4/17/03, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>>  As a co-chair, my thought is that the protocol should not ...
>
>is this a sentence anyone should complete?

Perhaps a more precise wording is "the discussion over the protocol" 
and not "the protocol"
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                            +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer

"I'm sorry, sir, your flight is delayed for maintenance.  We are
pounding out the dents from the last landing."