OK.
we'll get to it.
Regards,
Elwyn Davies
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]
> Sent: 19 November 2004 10:48
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Consensus for moving NAT-PT to experimental?
>
>
> (co-chair hat on)
>
> There is rough consensus for moving NAT-PT to experimental.
>
> Authors, please revise the draft by removing the considerations about
> the scenarios, and just listing NAT-PT issues, and pass it by the
> chairs; let's submit the next version as a WG document.
>
> (hat off)
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > (co-chair hat on)
> >
> > At the meeting, there was almost unanimous consensus for
> moving NAT-PT to
> > experimental.
> >
> > The approach which seemed to have significant support was
> splitting the
> > document draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt in two:
> the one describing
> > issues (which would also request the reclassification), and
> one describing
> > different usage (or non-usage) scenarios.
> >
> > If you believe this is a bad approach, please voice your
> concerns within a
> > week, by 18th November. Thanks!
> >
> > (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
>
>
>