Re: Anotherj RFP without IETF community input

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

 



On 2011-10-20 08:41, George, Wes wrote:
> I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all
> proposed/requested features is not an explicitly stated requirement,
> even at this phase.

And more generally, this should be considered an opportunity for
dogfooding the protocols we create. IPv6 is one of them. SIP, RTP, the
XCON stuff, and XMPP could be others.

It would be very sad if we end up with the usual everything-over-HTTP
Flash applet stuff.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]