To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <email@example.com>
Cc: Edward Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <email@example.com>, Ted Hardie <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
From: Edward Lewis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:29:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] legal entity vs individual person
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."