With no disrespect intended to the authors... I agree that there is no universally accepted name for an IPv6 address part, but IMO IETF and this WG has much larger things to be concerned with than how to name IPv6 address parts, and adopting a document like this makes it seem like we have nothing better to do and trivializes the other work that we actually need people to pay attention to. It's fine as an individual submission, it doesn't need a WG to "help" it along, and there's no clear consensus based on the discussion thus far anyway.
Wes George -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:45 PM To: IPv6 WG Mailing List Subject: Consensus call on adopting: draft-hartmann-6man-addressnaming All, This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting: Title : Naming IPv6 address parts Author(s) : L. Donnerhacke, et al. Filename : draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-01.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2011-05-06 as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or to the chairs. This call will end on May 1, 2011. Regards, Brian & Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
