I think this will be fine. I have some worries about how the MIB might go awry, but I don't think the choice of WG will affect the outcome.
Thanks, --MM-- On Fri, 26 May 2006, Lars Eggert wrote: > Hi, > > On May 26, 2006, at 18:28, Matthew J Zekauskas wrote: > > > > I believe the idea was to redo the charter with the MIB in it, but > > move it to TSVWG if that made more sense after the personal submission > > made it out. > > I'd prefer to do the MIB in TSVWG, similar to how the TCP estats MIB > happens there (and not in TCPM), because if anywhere in TSV, MIB > people can be found in TSVWG. > > > Proposed: > > Done Reorganized Internet-Draft. Solicit implementation and > > field experience. > > Done Update Internet-Draft incorporating implementers > > experience, > > Jun 2006 Submit completed Internet-draft of the pmtud method > > for > > Proposed Standard. > > *If* the MIB moves to TSVWG, there may not even be a need to > recharter, because PMTUD would close at that point. > > Comments? > > Thanks, > Lars > -- > Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories > > > _______________________________________________ pmtud mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud
