Re: [v6ops] draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis - where to go from here

[Thomas Herbst <[e-mail]>]

As one of the people pushing for a simple first v6 cpe document in my old
role as 
"cisco guy hanging out at Linksys", I agree this document should go
forward and the 
"herbst/sturek" draft should be in advanced.

tom

On 3/1/11 2:15 PM, "Daniel Roesen" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 06:54:01AM +0000, Fred Baker wrote:
>> What do people want to see happen in
>>draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis?
>
>Speaking with an operator point of view: get the areas it covers
>polished up as quickly as possible and get it out of the door as RFC so
>we can start pointing vendors to it. There's always the option to update
>the RFC later with more topics covered and operational experience
>feedback incorporated.
>
>> Part of the outcome of IETF 79 was a discussion around Tom Herbst's
>> draft regarding interactions with the Smart Grid's Home Area Network.
>> This is something that is not mandatory in a next generation
>> residential router, but I suspect will have utility.
>
>See above. If not really required now, I'd favor not to consider it for
>cpe-router-bis in order to avoid further delays.
>
>Best regards,
>Daniel
>
>-- 
>CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [e-mail] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops