On Wed, 26 Sep 2012, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On 26 Sep 2012, at 03:41 , Mohacsi Janos wrote:
RA-guard work mostly done at v6ops.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-08
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation-04
Probably drafts should be circulated on v6ops mailing list
and have support from there.
IETF v6ops WG Charter does not include updates to the
IPv6 specifications. Quoting from this WG Charter:
"Specifying any protocols or transition
mechanisms is out of scope of the WG."
IETF 6MAN WG Charter DOES include updates to the
IPv6 specifications, again quoting from this WG Charter:
"The working group will address protocol limitations/issues
discovered during deployment and operation."
This is why the draft-*-ra-guard-* documents (quoted above)
belong in the IETF v6ops WG, while the 2 different I-Ds
that I mentioned belong here in the IETF 6MAN WG.
Now, in practice, the 2 draft-ietf-6man-* I-Ds that I mentioned
before already have been reviewed by many folks in v6ops,
as part of examining the RA Guard documents, and I believe
there is broad support for these updates within v6ops.
However, these 2 protocol specification updates are required
to be handled by the IETF 6MAN WG, simply as a matter
of the applicable IETF WG charters and usual IETF processes.
The situation must be clear for everybody now. I fully support WGLC for 2
draft-ietf-6man-* I-Ds to move forward.
Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
