[GGF-ipv6-wg] Infrastructure area meeting

[Piers O'Hanlon]

> At 11:32 AM +0200 6/23/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I believe the answer is that we are done, unless Piers
> >disagrees or anyone has the energy to update the
> >dependency analysis.
> 
> that was also my understanding. I suppose that we need to keep this 
> wg dormant in stead of completely removed and closed for in case new 
> specs come up which need to be checked here.
> 
I'd agree - basically we're done - though we can keep it dormant if GGF want to do so - It may be a useful point of contact for other WGs when they have IPv6 issues.

I won't be making GGF 14 but Brian's presence will be more than enough.

Hope it goes well,

Piers.

> See you,
> Cees.
> 
> >     Brian
> >
> >P.S. I hope to be at Cees's infrastructure area meeting
> >
> >Tim Chown wrote:
> >>Is there anything to be done on the IPv6 WG Charter, or are the WG's
> >>activities completed?
> >>
> >>Tim
> >>
> >>On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 11:59:22PM +0200, Cees de Laat wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dear *,
> >>>
> >>>As you all most probably know the area's are going to be 
> >>>restructured and the new area's will become effective at GGF 14.
> >>>
> >>>In the GFSG dance around which AD(s) takes/gets what area in the 
> >>>new structure I was extremely pleased to get the Infrastructure 
> >>>area, given that my professional interests are in Optical/photonic 
> >>>networking, service/control planes and make that underware a first 
> >>>class fit for the grid.
> >>>
> >>>You may be unaware but I have subscribed to your mailing lists in 
> >>>februari and have tried to follow what is going on (on some I was 
> >>>already subscribed).
> >>>
> >>>So I would like to have an area meeting which is scheduled for 
> >>>wednesday june 29th 18h00-19h30. In that meeting we can discuss:
> >>>- note taker(s)
> >>>- agenda bashing
> >>>- current status of the different groups
> >>>   - current docs in production
> >>>   - scope of the area
> >>>- what is missing in the area, where do we need more or less activity
> >>>- how do we effectively work together in the future (I hate to 
> >>>impose useless phonecalls to your agenda's)
> >>>
> >>>The groups in this area are:
> >>>ipv6-wg, nm-wg, datatransport-rg, ghpn-wg, nma-rg .
> >>>I know that some groups may be dormant, or not meeting anymore, etc.
> >>>I also want to remark that there are 2 BOF's running but not yet 
> >>>converged to being chartered: Sensor grids and grid-VPN although 
> >>>we actually may be close to finalizing that.
> >>>
> >>>Regarding the AD(s):
> >>>I am currently the only AD for this area in the standards section. 
> >>>My term is ending in october. I was on the GFSG for a little over 
> >>>3.5 years by then. The NOMCOM is currently in the process of 
> >>>getting these two positions (re)filled. If the NOMCOM chooses so I 
> >>>may be serving again after October, I am currently a nominee.
> >>>
> >>>Best regards,
> >>>Cees.
> >>>--
> >>>http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/
> >>>
> >>>-------
> >>>Via the GGF IPv6-WG mailing list
> >>
> >>
> >
> >-------
> >Via the GGF IPv6-WG mailing list
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://www.science.uva.nl/~delaat/
> 
> -------
> Via the GGF IPv6-WG mailing list


-------
Via the GGF IPv6-WG mailing list