Given the number of comments/concerns raised over the initial proposed
charter, the chairs need to revise the charter. After that, it is
reviewed by the relevant AD (Jari in this case) and once he is satisfied
with the charter content, it is reviewed by the IESG and comments are
solicited from the
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
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 o
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?
--
-
> > 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 wor
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
Chris, Itojun,
>
> I didn't think there was consensus on the RH0 direction yet, was there?
> i'm not too sure if ULA-C has wg consenssu to be the way forward.
The charter lists existing work that we are taking over
from IPv6 WG. That the charter allows working on topic
X does not in any way
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 ch
Yes.
Jari
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I believe that a concerted v6 deployment effort (which is not
> IETF's job) is likely to start and will lead to both practical
> input on operational issues (for v6ops) and to possible
> identification of gaps in the specifications (for 6man and, er,
> ngtrans
> 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
On Jul 26, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
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 item
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 approv
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Tim Enos wrote:
o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses
(ULA-C)
Considering ULA as a core IPv6 protocol is a hard sell.
I personally am not considering ULA a core protocol. However, the work
on ULA (whatever the outcome) needs a home.
I agree
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 shou
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
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
---
Itojun,
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 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. For example, the deployment
>> of new transition tools is out of scope
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
>>
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
> o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses (ULA-C)
I remain unconvinced of the need for central allocation. I trust
arc4random() more than human administrators. Taking care of reverse
DNS automatically solves a non-problem.
Anyone interested in a random number is invit
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"
> 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 Compl
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
> 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 beyo
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 that I would like to see discussed in the
the IETF, at
26 matches
Mail list logo
