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
> From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:42 AM
> Sure. Feel free to send RFC numbers and we'll include
> some in the draft response that we'll circulate in a
> while. (So no need to spam everyone with those, just
BTW, in case it wasn't clear, I think the IETF should do that architecture.
On Jun 4, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> I think we'd like to respond to them that that's great,
>> and we'll be interested in their results, but can the
, 2011 11:10 PM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: Turner, Sean P.; v6...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org; Eliot
Lear
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ITU-T SG17 IPv6 security work items liaison
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I think we'd like to respond to them that that's
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I think we'd like to respond to them that that's great,
> and we'll be interested in their results, but can they
> *please* come back to us before saying something should
> be changed so's we can talk about it.
That seems like a reasonable pro
