So is stateless (apparently), yet the agenda seems to prefer to generously assign time to everything but this topic, which by many accounts is what the WG is very interested in discussing. It also seems that I'm not the the only one thinking that this does not look quite reasonable...
-Wojciech On 21 July 2011 14:26, Alain Durand <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 21, 2011, at 5:08 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote: > >> I would like to support Mark's observation and add one more: While >> fine and chartered drafts like MIBs (20 minutes) and multicast (30 >> minutes) surely have discussion merit, besides merit of non-chartered >> drafts like B4-NAT-bypass, DHCP- .., etc, (30 minutes in all), given >> that WG facetime comes at a premium it would be fair to prioritize >> discussions around the issues that appear to be in most need of such >> facetime. In view of this assigning 4 drafts of stateless46 into >> collectively 20 minutes appears to be questionable, and more so given >> past precedent in terms of the difficulty in getting a discussion >> going in this WG. > > > Wojciech, > > B4-NAT bypass is in the charter. It is specifically called out in work area > #3: > > 3. Developments for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite): > - multicast > - operational specification > - RADIUS attribute for AFTR > - proxy extensions; GI-DS-Lite; No NAT on AFTR > > - Alain. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
