> From: Simon Perreault [[email protected]] > > On 2011-10-20 08:41, George, Wes wrote: > > I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all > > proposed/requested features is not an explicitly stated requirement, > > even at this phase. > > And more generally, this should be considered an opportunity for > dogfooding the protocols we create. IPv6 is one of them. SIP, RTP, the > XCON stuff, and XMPP could be others.
I agree with the sentiment, but at *this* stage, that is, *finding* someone to write the requirements, the RFP should not include specific requirements for the remote participation system. Dale _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
