Also, could the cahirs confirm the final status of the existing eight WG
drafts as listed at:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html
Four of these aren't mentioned in the revised charter; are they
expected to complete before 6MAN forms?
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipv6/ gives
Hi Brian,
One of the tasks that the 6MAN WG is chartered for is : Shepherd
completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
Will this WG also standardize any new flags or options for the RA that are
currently being discussed?
The question arises from the work on specifying a flag/option in the
Hi Brian,
Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Suresh,
I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG
wishes to adopt. So, if/when this working group is formed, you can
formally request the WG to consider adoption of that work item.
Sounds good.
Or are you arguing for
On 8/20/07 4:00 PM, Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG wishes to
adopt.
I believe this is the wrong thing to do for any wg in general and for a
maintenance¹ wg in particular.
The charter is a contract between the wg and
I also believe that the PMIP capability mechanism is something
that should come out of the discussions in NETLMM. Of course,
the IPv6 experts need to be consulted.
Jari
Suresh Krishnan kirjoitti:
Hi Raj,
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hi Brian,
One of the tasks that the 6MAN WG is chartered for is
Alain,
I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG wishes
to adopt.
I believe this is the wrong thing to do for any wg in general and for
a ‘maintenance’ wg in particular.
The charter is a contract between the wg and the IETF represented by
the AD about what should and
All,
I have revised the charter for the proposed IPv6 maintenance WG
based on comments received. Please review.
Regards,
Brian
IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)
Chair(s):
Robert Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
