RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

I am not sure either.  But it is important.  If we state the problem we
are trying to solve, the ways dhc could solve it, and then ?????  Would
that work.  We can always get IPv6 people as subject matter experts too.
There is something more to do above for the charter but not sure what
else.

Thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:24 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Ralph Droms; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter 
> 
> 
> > This looks good.  I must have missed it but I don't see prefix
> > delegation?  Is that within the options?   Or do we move 
> that to IPv6
> > WG?   This is very important work required.
> 
> I agree that it is important work.
> 
> In practice it needs to be joint between IPv6 and DHC. I 
> don't have strong opinions on whether it is more appropriate 
> to list it as a DHC item vs. one in the IPv6 WG. I believe 
> *they* believe they should own it. :-)
> 
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg