On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Hemant Singh \(shemant\) wrote:
Folks,
When will a URL be available for this new IPv6 Maintenance WG? Will this
new WG have a new mailer to send emails to or will the ipv6@ietf.org
mailer continue to be used for the new WG? If a new mailer is created,
will people subscribed
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Jari Arkko wrote:
Brian Carpenter wrote:
6man, and tweak the charter to cover address architecture maintenance,
This would be my take too.
so you will issue a new version of the charter with some of the other
changes people have mention?
--
Hi Jari,
Tim,
I agree that ULA-C needs a home but disagree the IPv6 Maintenance WG is
it, given:
* the first paragraph of the proposed charter:
The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core
IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of new
solutions or
Itujun,
o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses
(ULA-C)
Jul 2008 Submit ULA-C specification to IESG as a Proposed
Standard
i'm not too sure if ULA-C has wg consenssu to be the way forward.
so i would object to this wording.
Complete work
Jari,
I hesitated about cross-posting this comment to v6ops too...
On 2007-07-26 20:23, Jari Arkko wrote:
Let me just add something on this:
For example, the deployment
of new transition tools is out of scope of this working group.
Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group
All,
Alain,
Durand, Alain wrote:
The working group's work items are as follows:
o Shepherd completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation
document
o Complete documentation/standardization of IPv6 over PPP
Tim,
I agree that ULA-C needs a home but disagree the IPv6 Maintenance WG is it,
given:
* the first paragraph of the proposed charter:
The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core
IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of new
solutions or changes
Do you have an example of such a specification you are
worried about?
Teredo's one that showed up at v6ops meeting.
I think ISATAP (RFC4214) was mentioned on the v6ops list, too?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working
On 2007-07-26 21:55, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Tim Enos wrote:
...
The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core
IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of new
solutions or changes to the specifications..
at least one of the group
The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core
IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of
new solutions or changes to the specifications. For example,
the deployment of new transition tools is out of scope of
this working group.
Proposals for work
Hi Chris,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On 7/26/07, Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The working group's work items are as follows:
o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation
document
...
All new work items not listed above require the approval of the
On 7/26/07, Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The working group's work items are as follows:
o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation document
...
All new work items not listed above require the approval of the working
group and IESG before they will be
On Thursday 26 July 2007 22:01:33 Brian Haberman wrote:
Yup. What about maintenance of existing non-core specifications, by the
way?
Do you have an example of such a specification you are worried about?
Teredo's one that showed up at v6ops meeting.
--
Rémi Denis-Courmont
On Thursday 26 July 2007 21:23:22 Jari Arkko wrote:
Let me just add something on this:
For example, the deployment
of new transition tools is out of scope of this working group.
Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group should be sent
to relevant ADs.
This is a topic
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
On Thursday 26 July 2007 21:23:22 Jari Arkko wrote:
Let me just add something on this:
For example, the deployment
of new transition tools is out of scope of this working group.
Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group should be sent
to relevant
The working group's work items are as follows:
o Shepherd completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation
document
o Complete documentation/standardization of IPv6 over PPP
Compression Negotiation
o Complete
All,
The IPv6 WG chairs have had several discussions on the future of
the IPv6 WG with our AD (Jari Arkko). The recommended way forward is to
close the existing IPv6 WG and create an IPv6 maintenance working group.
The attached proposed charter describes the new group.
The sole
Alain,
Durand, Alain wrote:
The working group's work items are as follows:
o Shepherd completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation
document
o Complete documentation/standardization of IPv6 over PPP
18 matches
Mail list logo
