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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf