Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

With all due respect, firewall traversal and protocol translation  
look like they are going to be interesting/important topics, at least  
in the near term. You might consider Alain's slides from v6ops/nanog  
in that regard. Closing an application working group because the  
examples in its documents are IPv4 seems a little presumptuous.  
Closing a working group because we disagree with what appear to us to  
be their assumptions seems a bit presumptuous.

I'm all for closing working groups that are moribund. If a working  
group is in process and is supporting a constituency that addresses a  
business requirement, I'm not sure I see the wisdom.

On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>> Suggestions of WGs?
>
> mipv4
> mipshop
> netconf (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4)
> nea (should be agnostic, but clearly has the IPv4 mindset of a single
> address/interface)
> syslog (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4)
> behave
> midcom
> nsis (because most of the group is focused on nat signaling)
>
> there are probably more, but closing these would be a good start  
> and set an
> example
>
> Tony
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHaYiAbjEdbHIsm0MRAk+0AJ9pU9tC69Shq69V/kRXrIOkk9WHzgCeLGHo
DnzVVMhB4hqJcQcw8B0Xa/k=
=afRV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf