RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

All my issues are resolved.  I think it should go to the IESG.  
thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:13 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Please review the changes to this document, and let us know 
> if all of your last call issues were adequately resolved.  If 
> there are no remaining issues, we hope to forward this 
> document to the IESG by the middle of next week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> 
> At 02:44 PM 6/5/2003 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
> >The draft "draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-01.txt" into account the 
> >comments received during the V6OPS WG last call for 
> >draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-00.txt. The authors believe 
> that this 
> >document addresses the last call comments. A list of these 
> comments and 
> >the way they were addressed is available at:
> >
> >         http://www.huitema.net/ipv6/Unman-Scenarios-Issues.htm
> >
> >The main changes fall in three categories:
> >
> >1) Change the topology section to explain exactly why we did not 
> >consider the multiple subnet case (i.e., with today's 
> technology, such 
> >networks are not unmanaged);
> >
> >2) Change several of the case description scenarios to remove the 
> >more-or-less implicit assumption that there is always a NAT in IPv4 
> >deployments;
> >
> >3) Fix a number of editorial issues, notably the abstract, the 
> >introduction, the wording of references to DNS issues, and a 
> split of 
> >references between normative and informative.
> >
> >-- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
> 
>