All, >Alain, > >Durand, Alain wrote: >> >>> The working group's work items are as follows: >>> >>> o Shepherd completion of standardization of RA Flags Option >>> o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation >> document >>> o Complete documentation/standardization of IPv6 over PPP >> Compression Negotiation >>> o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses >> (ULA-C) >> >> Considering ULA as a core IPv6 protocol is a hard sell. >> > >I personally am not considering ULA a core protocol. However, the work >on ULA (whatever the outcome) needs a home.
I agree that ULA-C "needs a home" but disagree the IPv6 Maintenance WG is it, given: * the first paragraph of the proposed charter: "The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of new solutions or changes to the specifications.." && at least one of the group chairs doesn't consider it to be a core protocol, && at least one of the group chairs doesn't see group consensus on ULA-C, && there are other group members who don't see group consensus on ULA-C, && we haven't heard from any group members who do see group consensus on ULA-C, && "Complete work" is meant to be predicated upon group consensus I'd say it should be removed from the charter. > >Regards, >Brian Best Regards, Tim Enos Rom 8:28 > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
