Subject: Take NAP as WG document?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:02:42 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

(co-chair hat on, still for a while :)

In the v6ops session, there seemed to be strong consensus to take 
"IPv6 Network Architecture Protection" 
<draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01.txt> as a WG item for Informational.

If you have issues with this, please raise them within a week, by 16th 
March.

Thanks!

(hat off)

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:29:31 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

(probably the last thing with the co-chair hat on)

There seem to have been no objections to taking NAP a WG item, though 
there has been some good discussion for improvement (thanks!).

Authors, please submit the next version as draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-00.txt 
(if you'd be revising it within the next 2 weeks, and if not, just 
publish the current version as -00.)  Please also state when sending 
the draft to [email-masked] that the submission obsoletes 
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01.txt.

(hat off)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
> In the v6ops session, there seemed to be strong consensus to take "IPv6 
> Network Architecture Protection" <draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-01.txt> as a WG 
> item for Informational.
>
> If you have issues with this, please raise them within a week, by 16th March.
>
> Thanks!
>
> (hat off)
>

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