Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues]

["Eric Klein" <ericlklein.ipv6 at gmail.com>]

On 5/3/07, Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:

> I am sorry if I was unclear. I am on both lists and understand their
> diffrences.

No, you are confusing ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de with v6ops at ietf.org.
They are not the same. The first has nothing to do with the IETF and
can't care much about what the IETF will decide, they will most likely
look at it and take it into consideration, but that is it.

 

 

Actually I am refering to I ETF V6OPS WG <v6ops at ops.ietf.org> not the one on cluenet, as this is where the discussion is occuring.

Please actually READ what I write.

> My concern is that both lists are reviewing this problem and looking for
> a solution independently of each other.
>
> So I am wondering which group is more appropriate for a soltuion, thus
> the topic would fall under:
> 1. IPv6 WG
> 2. v6OPS WG

As this definitely concerns the IPv6 Protocol, as the RT0 is part of the
protocol and that is broken it belongs in ipv6 at ietf.org (IPv6 WG) and
not in v6ops which is also not where this discussion is taking place.

I agree in where this should be taking place, but disagree that it is only taking place here.

 

 

Please see the thread starting with message:

http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2007/msg00302.html

 

Fore the discussion in the OPS WG

 

Eric

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------