What Fred said. Also, MIPSHOP is not for IPv4. Just the first line of the charter mentions IPv6 twice. Jari Fred Baker wrote: > With all due respect, firewall traversal and protocol translation look > like they are going to be interesting/important topics, at least in > the near term. You might consider Alain's slides from v6ops/nanog in > that regard. Closing an application working group because the examples > in its documents are IPv4 seems a little presumptuous. Closing a > working group because we disagree with what appear to us to be their > assumptions seems a bit presumptuous. > > I'm all for closing working groups that are moribund. If a working > group is in process and is supporting a constituency that addresses a > business requirement, I'm not sure I see the wisdom. > > On Dec 19, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > >>> Suggestions of WGs? > >> > >> mipv4 > >> mipshop > >> netconf (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4) > >> nea (should be agnostic, but clearly has the IPv4 mindset of a single > >> address/interface) > >> syslog (should be high level, but ID examples are all IPV4) > >> behave > >> midcom > >> nsis (because most of the group is focused on nat signaling) > >> > >> there are probably more, but closing these would be a good start > and set an > >> example > >> > >> Tony > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf