[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?

To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
From: Sean Doran <smd@ab.use.net>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 20:13:11 +0100
In-reply-to: <20030809102637.GE9484@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <LIEEJBCNFDJHFFKJJDPAAEALCOAA.marcelo@it.uc3m.es> <3F34242E.7000702@sun.com> <20030809102637.GE9484@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On Saturday, 9 August 2003, at 11:26AM, Tim Chown wrote:

Agreed - and which WG would consider it?

Does that really matter?   There is a decent set of people
in this one, and I* seems pretty content to let work develop
in situ, moving it when and if that seems more obviously
productive.

	Sean.

References:
- RE: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
  - From: "marcelo bagnulo" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
- Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
  - From: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
- Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
  - From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
Next by Date: Re: New version of HIP base protocol submitted
Previous by thread: Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
Next by thread: Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread