Re: Accept Unmanaged Analysis Document as WG Draft?

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@IPRG.nokia.com>]

Margaret,

One comment on the document (perhaps this should go to the authors) is
that section 6 needs to add a bullet such as:

 - To meet case Bprefix sharing requirements, we need a standardized
   multi-link subnet mechanism

Other than that, the document looks good.

Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> Given that the consensus in SF, and the fact that there
> have been no objections on the list, the following document
> is now a v6ops work item.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-v6ops-unmaneval-00.txt
>
> Thanks, Christian and the Unmanaged design team.
>
> Margaret
>
>
> At 10:26 AM 5/14/2003 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > In SF, we had consensus that the analysis document
> > produced by the Unmanaged Team would serve as a good
> > starting place for our work, and that we should accept
> > it as a WG draft.
> >
> > The latest version of this document can be found at:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-v6ops-unmaneval-00.txt
> >
> >
> > Unless there are any objections from the mailing list,
> > I'll ask the Unmanaged Team to publish the next version
> > as a WG I-D.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Margaret