On 6/14/2011 5:32 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Joe,
Fair point about the draft-gont document. I've taken it out
for now.
Which was the 6man I-D you meant?
The one ref'd inside the draft-gont-v6ops doc - it's draft-gont-6man...
There aren't issues with the draft-ietf-6man docs.
Joe
The
Hi, all,
It'd be useful to wait until these docs (this v6ops one and the 6man one
it refers) are adopted by the relevant WGs before noting them in
recommendations to external parties, IMO.
Some of the recommendations in these documents are akin to "if I didn't
expect it, it's an attack", whi
Joe,
A suggestion just on this one point:
> I'd prefer to see the relevant WGs endorse these as useful ways
> forward before adding them to this list.
>
It is good for the IETF to provide the ITU's membership an opportunity
to comment either formally via the liaison process or informally as
ind
Hi Joe,
Fair point about the draft-gont document. I've taken it out
for now.
Which was the 6man I-D you meant? There are now two referenced
thanks to recent comments and both are draft-ietf-6man so have
presumably been adopted by the WG.
My current version is attached following today's edits in
