Itojun, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >> The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core >> IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of new >> solutions or changes to the specifications. For example, the deployment >> of new transition tools is out of scope of this working group. >> Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group should be sent >> to relevant ADs. >> >> Please review the proposed charter and provide comments. > > i think it is a bit minor, but i thought i should bring it up. > > from the proposed charter: > >> o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses (ULA-C) >> Jul 2008 Submit ULA-C specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard > > i'm not too sure if ULA-C has wg consenssu to be the way forward. > so i would object to this wording. > > note: there was problem raised in SIDR as to how to handle X509 certs > for ULA (or ULA-C? i'm not sure about it)
The mention of ULA in SIDR was more for completeness in their discussion of how to handle private addresses in general (including 1918 addresses in IPv4). One of the co-chairs of that group is actively involved in the ULA discussion and the other co-chair and I had a long discussion on them as well. The outcome from SIDR is a need for them to consider how their solutions address the use of all private addresses. Regards, Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
