Subject: Re: [netlmm] #59: Problem statement doesn't mention IPv4

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:40:42 -0000

#59: Problem statement doesn't mention IPv4
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  assigned                
  Priority:  minor                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:                               |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * status:  new => assigned

Comment:

 Recommdation is to add a short statement in the Introduction saying that
 the problems are there in IPv4 as well.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://www1.tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/trac/ticket/59>
netlmm <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/netlmm/>

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 12:39:46 -0000

#59: Problem statement doesn't mention IPv4
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect                       |      Status:  new                     
 Priority:  minor                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
 Keywords:  PS draft                     |  
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Pekka Savola writes:

 5) The problem statement and IPv4

 The charter seems to rule IPv4 out of scope, even though the requirements
 document prefers a solution which would work with v4 as well.  The PS doc
 doesn't seem to say anything explicit about v6 or v4 support -- maybe it
 should.

---

From: netlmm-tracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 09:22:43 -0000

#59: Problem statement doesn't mention IPv4
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
  Reporter:  [email-masked]     |       Owner:  [email-masked]
      Type:  defect                       |      Status:  closed                  
  Priority:  minor                        |   Milestone:  milestone2              
 Component:  draft-ietf-netlmm-nohost-ps  |     Version:  1.0                     
Resolution:  fixed                        |    Keywords:  PS draft                
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * resolution:  => fixed
  * status:  assigned => closed