[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ipng
Subject: Re: Summary: Confirming consensus on adopting draft-carpenter-6man-why64
From: Nabil Benamar <benamar73 () gmail ! com>
Date: 2014-03-26 9:00:48
Message-ID: CAMugd_U+4TJtjpZkRG6ZvnsHD9qC9TdVmz4-PFoO_45nS0-e=w () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Hi All,
It is really interesting to see that this draft is being adopted as a wg
item and that the current document will not change the /64 boundary but
could open more discussions about this fixed limit in the upcoming days.
best
*Best wishes*
*=D9=86=D8=A8=D9=8A=D9=84 =D8=A8=D9=86=D8=B9=D9=85=D8=B1=D9=88*
*Nabil Benamar*
*Moulay Ismail University.*
*Meknes. Morocco*
*nabilbenamar.com <http://nabilbenamar.com>*
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> There was consensus to adopt draft-carpenter-6man-why64 as a 6MAN working
> group item at the IETF89 working group meeting, with the expectation that
> the document is changed to making a positive statement as opposed to a
> defensive one.
>
> The chairs believe there is a consensus to adopt this document as an
> working group document in 6MAN that is intended to be an Informational RF=
C.
>
> The chairs would emphasize that this document will not change the /64
> boundary. Doing so would be very disruptive to the current IPv6 deployme=
nt
> efforts. Further, a change of this scope does not appear to be consisten=
t
> with the charter of the working group.
>
> Authors, please publish the next revision as draft-ietf-6man-why64-00
>
> Best regards,
> Bob & Ole
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" \
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#3d85c6">Hi \
All,</div><div class="gmail_default" \
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#3d85c6"><br> </div><div \
class="gmail_default" \
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#3d85c6">It is really \
interesting to see that this draft is being adopted as a wg item and that the current \
document will not change the /64 boundary but could open more discussions about this \
fixed limit in the upcoming days.</div> <div class="gmail_default" \
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#3d85c6"><br></div><div \
class="gmail_default" \
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#3d85c6">best \
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"> <br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div \
style="text-align:left"><font color="#1f497d" face="sans-serif"><span \
style="font-size:15px"><b>Best wishes</b></span></font></div><div dir="rtl" \
style="text-align:left"><font color="#1f497d" face="sans-serif"><span \
style="font-size:15px"><b>نبيل بنعمرو</b></span></font></div> <div \
style="text-align:left"><font color="#1f497d" face="sans-serif"><span \
style="font-size:15px"><b>Nabil Benamar</b></span></font></div><div \
style="text-align:left"><font color="#1f497d" face="sans-serif"><b>Moulay Ismail \
University.</b></font></div> <div style="text-align:left"><font color="#1f497d" \
face="sans-serif"><b>Meknes. Morocco</b></font></div><div \
style="text-align:left"><font color="#1f497d" face="sans-serif"><b><a \
href="http://nabilbenamar.com" target="_blank">nabilbenamar.com</a></b></font></div> \
</div></div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Ole \
Troan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:otroan@employees.org" \
target="_blank">otroan@employees.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"> There was consensus to adopt draft-carpenter-6man-why64 as a \
6MAN working group item at the IETF89 working group meeting, with the expectation \
that the document is changed to making a positive statement as opposed to a defensive \
one.<br>
<br>
The chairs believe there is a consensus to adopt this document as an working group \
document in 6MAN that is intended to be an Informational RFC.<br> <br>
The chairs would emphasize that this document will not change the /64 boundary. \
Doing so would be very disruptive to the current IPv6 deployment efforts. Further, \
a change of this scope does not appear to be consistent with the charter of the \
working group.<br>
<br>
Authors, please publish the next revision as draft-ietf-6man-why64-00<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Bob & Ole<br>
<br>
<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ipv6@ietf.org">ipv6@ietf.org</a><br>
Administrative Requests: <a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6" \
target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6</a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic