Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Pekka,

Reply to only a minor part of your message.

This sound really weird. If you believe this is done, or almost, it make
sense to get this as WG item and make sure that the WG take a look (last
call process that we used to push the WG attention with other documents) ?

What is not sensible to me is to say, "will be needed, is almost done, but
...". I don't understand the but ! Is ridiculous to have a work done waiting
for ... may be another WG ? This will take then more time from the WG and
the IETF in general that closing it now !

Can we heard the rest of the WG opinion on this ?

Regards,
Jordi

>> Also, I think this
>>> - draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc
>> belongs to what I called Group 1, and is ready to be closed. Otherwise will
>> be good the received inputs, objections or whatever !
> 
> I don't disagree that this is rather close to being closed, but the
> question is of its urgency -- I think it'll be needed only when we
> start figuring out which kind of protocols we specify, or how we
> modify them.  (Granted, it would be useful if there was already
> consensus on that then.)
> 



**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.