Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 19 December 2007 21:14 UTC

Return-path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J56Fi-0008Pa-Ma; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:14:54 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J56Fh-0008PR-6f for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:14:53 -0500
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([2001:14b8:400::130] helo=smtp.piuha.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J56Fg-0007d1-Mn for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:14:53 -0500
Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134921986CD; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:14:52 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79A6198642; Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:14:51 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <476989CB.6040501@piuha.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:14:51 +0200
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
References: <E1J3IFS-0002yV-CG@ietf.org> <200712142154.lBELs1ne090300@drugs.dv.isc.org> <200712181644.lBIGisBx090029@romeo.rtfm.com> <476800BC.5030504@dcrocker.net> <38033976C354EAB237181075@[192.168.101.1]><p06250103c38dc78214d8@[74.134.5.163]> <080c01c84276$ec9a79e0$c5cf6da0$@net> <A9C8C359-F790-4882-AD5B-DD3D554221BD@cisco.com> <082801c84281$adab2cb0$09018610$@net> <D47CAB3C-4D8C-4288-8695-2D5D39B5B53C@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D47CAB3C-4D8C-4288-8695-2D5D39B5B53C@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Cc: 'Cullen Jennings' <fluffy@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org, alh-ietf@tndh.net
Subject: Re: IPv4 Outage Planned for IETF 71 Plenary
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

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