Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

What Fred said. Also, MIPSHOP is not for IPv4. Just the first line of
the charter mentions IPv6 twice.

Jari

Fred Baker wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf