Subject: RE: multihoming proposals summary again.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:10:41 +0100

> 4. A URL for the full proposal.  This is a must.  A reference to a mail
> message
> is not sufficient. It should be in a form that makes it easy to print out
> &
> view from a web browser.  It doesn't have to be RFC formatted, but as long
> as
> it has enough detail to determine if it works it will be ok.  
> 
	Peter

	I do not agree with this. At least some of the ideas around are
increments on existing proposals or in an early stage and thus not worth
putting them up on a web site. I think your requirement can be satisfied
later for the proposals that will get the green light from the Interim
meeting next week. 

	Regards
	George
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 22:53:57 +1000 (EST)

Ok.  If you say so.  I just don't want to see bombshells dropped at the interim
meeting though.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210