Hi, Margaret!
Informational RFC is fine for us (this was discussed in SLC meeting).
We are happy that our document can be used as an input for a "general IPv6 node
requirements" document that will be written in the (near) future.
Cheers,
-Juha W.-
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 28 February, 2002 16:53
What type of last call are you proposing? Do you think that this
document should become an informational RFC? Or do you think it
should be on the standards track?
It was my impression that we (the WG) were hoping to move
towards a more general "node requirements" document, using this
document as (one of) the input(s).
Margaret
At 07:28 AM 2/28/02 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
>
>We "cellular host IPv6" draft authors believe that our draft
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt
>
>would be ready for wg last call.
>
>Bob and Steve, if there are no objections from the WG,
>could you please consider announcing last call for this draft?
>
>Thank You.
>
>On behalf of all the authors,
> Juha Wiljakka
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
>IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
>FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
>Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
