Hi, From: Vijay Devarapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> thanks Phil. this approach sounds good. I agree, too. We have had enough discussion and I am almost satisfied (though the discussion have not closed yet, but this is not a prpblem). Many people insist their opinion, almost all WG members hear them, and the chairmen and the editors have got enough information to go forward. Thoughout the discussion, it seems to me that the IPv6 WG will not accept the mip6 draft if the HAO/BE requirements are MUST. Even if we leave them with MUST (of course we can, the decision can be done in the mip WG inside), I think that the IESG never pass it. This creates another delay for the standard process of the mip6. I think we can leave the text for HAO/BE to the editors and wait for the new draft. Best Regards, --- Keiichi SHIMA IIJ Research Laboratory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KAME Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
