Re: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Fred and Fred,

The draft explicitly does not propose any new mechanisms;
it describes operational scenarios using existing mechanisms
or proposed future mechanisms. I don't see a better fit than
the v6ops charter at the moment.

    Brian

On 2009-06-11 16:25, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Fred,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:22 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Brian E Carpenter; IPv6 Operations; Behave Chairs
>> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
>>
>> well, remembering that we are actually NOT CHARTERED TO DISCUSS
>> TRANSITION ALGORITHMS, no. What I have been told is that matters
>> relating to network address translation and network protocol
>> translation have been moved to the working group chartered to discuss
>> that.
> 
> Sorry - I used a wrong word. I meant to say "IPv6 operations";
> not "IPv6 ****sitions".
> 
> Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 7:35 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
>>
>>> Fred,
>>>
>>>> Well, yes. My understanding is that the topic of CGNs is moving to
>>>> behave, and so should be submitted to behave. You can verify with
> the
>>>> behave chairs.
>>> The subject matter of this document seems more concerned
>>> with what IPv6 operational functions could be placed on a
>>> platform that might also support a CGN function, rather
>>> than the behavioral aspects of CGN itself. If the bulk
>>> of the material is about IPv6 transitions, wouldn't that
>>> qualify the document to remain targeted to this group?
>>>
>>> Fred
>>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> 
>