All,
Here is the IPv6 WG Document status as of March 4. Please direct
any comments or questions to the chairs and/or the mailing list. Any
substantial comments can be raised during our session in Minneapolis.
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF62/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
Regards
> > draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt Info Ready for WG Last Call?
> >
> > Should this read 'Ready for adopting as WG item?'
>
> Probably.
It was already adopted as a WG item back in 2003
(see the meeting minutes at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/index.html)
The only reason it's still dr
At 2:54 PM -0500 11/3/04, Dan Lanciani wrote:
Is this ARIN discussion archived somewhere?
The discussion I've seen happened on a mailing list archived at:
http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/index.html
I'm not on the list, and the archives seem to end shortly after this
discussion was started o
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|The ULA document (draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt) also had
|several IESG discuss comments (from Steve Bellovin, Bill Fenner, Ted
|Hardie and Alex Zinin). The document was updated (on 25-Oct) to
|address the most straightforward of those
At 7:53 PM +0200 11/2/04, Pekka Savola wrote:
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF61/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
Generic comment: is token really on Margaret w/ all of those AD
followup documents?
Hi Pekka,
Sort of... When a document is updated, the document automatically
goes to the AD
Just as an FYI, draft-carpenter-obsolete-1888-01.txt (Informational)
is in the RFC Editor queue. It obsoletes a former IPNGWG Experimental
RFC.
Brian C
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
The following URL contains the latest document status for all
IPv6 WG documents. Please review and provide comm
> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:53:37 +0200 (EET),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt
>Info AD Follow-up Token = Narten (Comments)
> Actually, the token is not on Thomas AFAIR. At the last meeting,
> there was a call who would step up
On Nov 2, 2004, at 12:53, Pekka Savola wrote:
Let me start before the meeting ;-)
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
The following URL contains the latest document status for all
IPv6 WG documents. Please review and provide comments on
the mailing list. Like San Diego, if issues arise,
Let me start before the meeting ;-)
On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
The following URL contains the latest document status for all
IPv6 WG documents. Please review and provide comments on
the mailing list. Like San Diego, if issues arise, we can discuss
them during the meeting if nee
All,
The following URL contains the latest document status for all
IPv6 WG documents. Please review and provide comments on
the mailing list. Like San Diego, if issues arise, we can discuss
them during the meeting if needed.
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF61/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus
]
> Subject: RE: IPv6 WG Document Status
>
> I can see that the draft of tunnel MIB
(draft-ietf-ipv6-inet-tunnel-mib-
> 01.txt) has duplicated
> sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. I just hop nothing important was not lost
due to
> this duplication.
>
> -Original Message
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IPv6 WG Document Status
All,
In order to save time in San Diego, the chairs have once
again posted the current document status on the web. We ask
that WG members review the status and bring up any issues on
the mailing list.
http://www.innovationslab.net
All,
In order to save time in San Diego, the chairs have once
again posted the current document status on the web. We ask
that WG members review the status and bring up any issues on
the mailing list.
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF60/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
Regards,
Brian & Bo
Just checking, what is the current status of
draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt? According to the status tracker
page, it's still in the "Ready for WG Last Call" state, and I don't
think I've seen the 1-week last call you mentioned.
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
All,
I have updated the Document status webpage based on comments
received.
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF59/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
Regards,
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Myung-Ki Shin wrote:
> > SSM range is FF3X::/32. This draft invades in that territory.
>
>No, as mentioned before,
>SSM format is FF3X::/96 in section 7 of RFC 3306.
>Thus, it is distinguishable.
Sorry, SSM WG does not agree with this interpretation.
>So, whi
Please see comments below :
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Dave Thaler wrote:
> > Pekka Savola writes:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> > > > I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> > > > My revised draft is available as follows:
> > > > http://www.ipv6.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Pekka Savola writes:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> > > I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> > > My revised draft is available as follows:
> > > http://www.ipv6.or.kr/eng/draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-04.txt
> >
> > I
Pekka Savola writes:
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> > I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> > My revised draft is available as follows:
> > http://www.ipv6.or.kr/eng/draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-04.txt
>
> I don't think this addresses my concerns. This does no
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Jung-Soo Park wrote:
> I revised my draft (-04) according to comments of ML.
> My revised draft is available as follows:
> http://www.ipv6.or.kr/eng/draft-ietf-ipv6-link-scoped-mcast-04.txt
I don't think this addresses my concerns. This does not work with
source-specific mult
quot;MUST" is updated by "SHOULD".
It's big change.
And,
many editorial problem are corrected.
Jungsoo
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian
Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:53 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: [EMAIL PROTEC
rsion addresses IESG DISCUSS
comments."
John
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ext
> Brian Haberman
> Sent: 02 March, 2004 02:20
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: IETF 59 IPv6 WG Document Status
>
>
> All,
>
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:58:42 -0500,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I was planning on doing a short (1 week) WG Last Call to allow
> commenters a chance to review the changes.
Fine, thanks.
JINMEI, Tatuya
I was planning on doing a short (1 week) WG Last Call to allow
commenters a chance to review the changes.
Regards,
Brian
JINMEI wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:20:21 -0500,
Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
The chairs have decided to handle document status differently
at IETF 59. Rath
Pekka,
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF59/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
What about the other work we should be doing, but isn't done yet (PPP
updates, "link-scoped multicast", point-to-point link support,
rfc3041bis, etc.)
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 19:20:21 -0500,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The chairs have decided to handle document status differently
> at IETF 59. Rather than spending valuable meeting time on status,
> we have created a webpage with the current status of all documents.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
> http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF59/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html
What about the other work we should be doing, but isn't done yet (PPP
updates, "link-scoped multicast", point-to-point link support,
rfc3041bis, etc.) ?
One comment:
RFC Editor's
All,
The chairs have decided to handle document status differently
at IETF 59. Rather than spending valuable meeting time on status,
we have created a webpage with the current status of all documents.
It is now available at:
http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF59/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.h
28 matches
Mail list logo
