RE: WG last call on tunneling scenarios

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

OK I messed up I thought the call was to make them WG items?  Not IETF
last WG call?  Did I miss a mail?  Sorry. I support them as WG items but
I think they need work before unloading on our IESG ADs.

Thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 2:22 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios
> 
> For those who already deleted the email with the pointers, 
> here they are again:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-z
> eroconf-goals-00.txt
> http://www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/ietf/draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-z
> eroconf-reqs-01.txt
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-
> tunneling-requirements-01.txt
> 
> 
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >> Fair enough.  Please send the objections (if any) on document 
> >> adoption by the end of Tuesday 2nd November at the latest.
> >> 
> >> Comments/review on the drafts themselves are still welcome!
> >
> > (hat on)
> >
> > As there were no specific objections to adopting these documents, 
> > there appears to be rough consensus on taking these as WG items.
> >
> > Let's continue the WG last call as called out earlier.
> >
> > *** We really need the reviews, and that means *YOU* too! :) ***
> >
> > (hat off)
> >
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
>