On 5/3/07, Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am sorry if I was unclear. I am on both lists and understand their > diffrences. No, you are confusing [EMAIL PROTECTED] with [EMAIL PROTECTED] They are not the same. The first has nothing to do with the IETF and can't care much about what the IETF will decide, they will most likely look at it and take it into consideration, but that is it.
Actually I am refering to IETF V6OPS WG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]><http://mail.softhome.net/email/login/EricLKlein%40SoftHome.net.authcustom/0BC8674E7137F0F2DDE11B156B482B25/1178221322?folder=NAP&form=quickadd&pos=17&newname=IETF+V6OPS+WG&newaddr=v6ops%40ops.ietf.org> not the one on cluenet, as this is where the discussion is occuring. Please actually READ what I write.
> My concern is that both lists are reviewing this problem and looking for > a solution independently of each other. > > So I am wondering which group is more appropriate for a soltuion, thus > the topic would fall under: > 1. IPv6 WG > 2. v6OPS WG As this definitely concerns the IPv6 Protocol, as the RT0 is part of the protocol and that is broken it belongs in [email protected] (IPv6 WG) and not in v6ops which is also not where this discussion is taking place. I agree in where this should be taking place, but disagree that it is only taking place here.
Please see the thread starting with message: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2007/msg00302.html Fore the discussion in the OPS WG Eric
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
