[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rogue RA WGLC

To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Rogue RA WGLC
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:23:54 +0200 (EET)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se, rbonica@juniper.net
In-reply-to: <CC481882-F6F4-4126-B697-73C81A481C20@cisco.com>
References: <CC481882-F6F4-4126-B697-73C81A481C20@cisco.com>
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23)

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Fred Baker wrote:

This is to initiate a two week working group last call ofdraft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-02.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-01.txt.

At least according to the I-D tracker, the former is not even a WGdocument yet, so it's not clear how we could have a WG LC on it. Isthis an omission in I-D tracker document state or something else?


--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rogue RA WGLC
  - From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

References:
- Rogue RA WGLC
  - From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: The renumbering problem [Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on the NAT66 draft]
Next by Date: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-03
Previous by thread: Rogue RA WGLC
Next by thread: Re: Rogue RA WGLC
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread