Also, could the cahirs confirm the final status of the existing eight WG
drafts as listed at:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html
Four of these aren't mentioned in the revised charter; are they
expected to complete before 6MAN forms?
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipv6/ gives
Hi Brian,
One of the tasks that the 6MAN WG is chartered for is : Shepherd
completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
Will this WG also standardize any new flags or options for the RA that are
currently being discussed?
The question arises from the work on specifying a flag/option in the
Jinmei,
to Proposed Standard. Please send substantive comments to the IPv6
mailing list. Editorial comments can be sent to the authors.
This last call will end on July 12, 2007.
Just out of curiosity, what's the current status (and planned next
step) of this last call? It seems those who
Dear colleagues,
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 01:43:19PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt.
I support this option, because it seems to me that the existing draft
makes the correct point: another rh[n] could be introduced to add the
desired
Hi Brian,
Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Suresh,
I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG
wishes to adopt. So, if/when this working group is formed, you can
formally request the WG to consider adoption of that work item.
Sounds good.
Or are you arguing for
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 01:43:19PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
We would like to get your comments on the following two choices:
1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt.
I don't agree with all the details of this draft (particularly the
language around firewall
On 20-Aug-2007, at 16:43, Bob Hinden wrote:
We would like to get your comments on the following two choices:
1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-
rh0-01.txt.
I support this option since:
1. I think it is the clearest solution to the problem (as in, easiest
to
On 8/20/07 4:00 PM, Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG wishes to
adopt.
I believe this is the wrong thing to do for any wg in general and for a
maintenance¹ wg in particular.
The charter is a contract between the wg and
On Aug 20, 2007, at 15:55, Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Aug-2007, at 16:43, Bob Hinden wrote:
We would like to get your comments on the following two choices:
1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-
rh0-01.txt.
I support this option since:
I do too, and I'd like to add to
At Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:43:19 -0700,
Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
After the reviewing the comments received during the working group
last call on draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt and discussing it
with our AD, the IPv6 w.g. chairs think it would be valuable to ask
the question again.
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Unless anyone can mention a lot of potential IPv6 deployments that will
deploy IPv6 without a router sending RA, it's not even worth discussing
the subject.
I pointed it out several times in IPv6 related WGs that RA work poorly
over links with unreliable
Hi Bob,
We would like to get your comments on the following two choices:
1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt.
I support this option.
I think having a new header i.e. RH4, should be added with the below
mentioned functionality. I have already got a draft for
Hideshi:
There are really two parts to this:
1. Is DAD for the link-local done when an interface reconnect is
detected? This may be required before multicasting the Confirm.
2. Is DAD for done for the global addresses (AFTER a successful
indication from a DHCPv6 Confirm is received, since there's
I also believe that the PMIP capability mechanism is something
that should come out of the discussions in NETLMM. Of course,
the IPv6 experts need to be consulted.
Jari
Suresh Krishnan kirjoitti:
Hi Raj,
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hi Brian,
One of the tasks that the 6MAN WG is chartered for is
Alain,
I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG wishes
to adopt.
I believe this is the wrong thing to do for any wg in general and for
a ‘maintenance’ wg in particular.
The charter is a contract between the wg and the IETF represented by
the AD about what should and
We would like to get your comments on the following two choices:
1) Deprecate RH0 as specified in draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-rh0-01.txt.
2) Revising the draft to restrict the usage of RH0. This would
If I were to choose one I support choice #1, but I can live with
choice #2 (but
16 matches
Mail list logo
