![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bernard:
We really do believe that this will make the latency much more consistent.
Russ
>I also think this is an appropriate, even if significant, >change of policy. I really don't see why we would give away >a precious resource such as a protocol number for secret >usage.
I also agree that the change is appropriate. However, I am also aware of significant frustration being voiced with respect to the speed by which the expert review process moved -- and this change could slow it further. It's worth keeping in mind that the IETF has no power to prevent people from using unallocated protocol numbers.
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.