-----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
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf