Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC1886bis-01

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 20:57:35 -0500

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

This draft is widely implemented, technically sound and a very
important part of IPv6.

IMO, it is ready to advance to DS.

Thanks,
Margaret

>Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 13:20:34 -0500
>From: Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: DNSEXT WGLC: RFC1886bis-01
>
>At 13:43 2002-11-14, Ólafur Gudmundsson/DNSEXT co-chair wrote:
>>This is the beginning of a 3 week working group last call.
>>This last call ends on December 6'th.
>
>There where 0 comments on this document during last call.
>If there are no statements received supporting this document by
>February 10'th the chairs will not advance this document.
>
>         Olafur
>
>>This document replaces RFC1886 with minimal changes incorporated from
>>interoperabilty testing and RFC3152 (ip6.arpa. delegation)
>>
>>This document is on standards track and is to be advanced to Draft
>>Standard it and supporting interoperabilty test report and is available 
>>via following URLs:
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsext-rfc1886bis-01.txt
>>
>>http://www.6wind.com/RFC1886/testRFC1886.html
>>
>>         Olafur
>
>--
>to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
>the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
>archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 08:13:41 -0800

I support this document being advanced.  It is widely implemented and
stable, and meets the requirement for Draft Standard.

Bob

>In-reply-to: <5.1.1.6.2.20021114115616.02177250@localhost>
>X-Sender: (Unverified)
>To: [email-masked]
>