Tim, This stemmed from a 'what *is* portable?' discussion. I believe its relevant in NANOG, regardless of overlap into an IETF WG topic. In any event (and to open old wounds), I *liked* the addr-ownership draft and believed it should've been advanced as BCP, but I digress. Whether or not there was consensus that it should have been adopted and advanced is not relevant; the topics it discussed surely are. - paul At 10:50 PM 6/3/96 -0400, @NANOG-LIST wrote:

...

The topic is discussed in more detail in draft-ietf-cidrd-addr-ownership-07.txt:

[snip]

If you could contain this discussion, for the moment in the PIER-WG and out of the radar range (i.e. NANOG) for a while it would be appreciated, I think. But then again, you are certainly free to do PIER-WG work in NANOG... but why?