Re: (ngtrans) NGtrans closing procedures

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Alain,

That makes sense. 

   Brian

Alain Durand wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
> >Alain,
> >
> >....
> >
> >
> >>Support for Multicast over 6to4 Networks (6TO4-MULTICAST)
> >>is ngtrans ID
> >><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-multicast-01.txt>
> >>
> >>becomes personal ID
> >><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-ngtrans-6to4-multicast-01.txt>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't understand this proposal. Since 6to4 is on the menu for v6ops, it
> >makes no sense to cut this draft loose as an individual submission.
> >The 6to4 solution is incomplete without multicast.
> >
> >
> Although I agree with you on that particular point, the v6ops has not (yet)
> formally accepted this document as wg item, thus, as part of the process
> of shutting down NGtrans, it has to be recycled as personal ID until
> v6ops decides to take it.
> 
> >The same argument applies to
> >
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-dns-01.txt (expired, but something's needed)
> >
> IMHO, this one should be handed over to DNSop.
> 
> >draft-savola-ngtrans-6to4-security-01.txt (no consensus yet, but needed)
> >
> Another likely candidate for v6ops if this group decides to take on
> 6to4 evolution.
> 
> >One option of course would be to spin up a 6to4 WG narrowly focussed
> >on these three drafts plus any updates to RFC 3056 - but it seems like
> >a lot of overhead rather than just taking these items in v6ops.
> >
> >   Brian
> >
> >
>     - Alain.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland