Subject: (ngtrans) forwarding ipv6-smtp-requirement for Informational

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 07:14:59 -0700

Randy,

ipv6-smtp-requirement-02 finished ngtrans WG last call with no comments, 
however one clarification comment received prior to the last call has been 
covered in a new -03 version.:

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-ipv6-smtp-requirement-03.txt>

Please process this draft as a candidate for Informational RFC.

Thanks,

Bob

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:11:02 -0700

> covered in a new -03 version.:

as it is not only requirements, but rather practice, i suggest that it might
be wise to get check-off from dnsext and wherever the smtp geeks hang out.
no large formal process, but rather "do you have any problem with this?"  i
suggest this as they will not get an ietf last call review as this is going
for info, which does not normally have ietf last call.

seem sensible?  if so, shout if you want my help, e.g. with dnsext.

randy

---

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:37:12 -0700

Randy,

>seem sensible?  if so, shout if you want my help, e.g. with dnsext.

Sure. Will do a mailing to dnsext. "SMTP geeks" will have to tell me where 
else to send it.

Thanks,

Bob

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 12:53:32 -0400

> Sure. Will do a mailing to dnsext. "SMTP geeks" will have to tell me where

[email-masked] is probably the best place.

AFAIK, they are reasonable in that they allow postings from non-members.

Keith

---

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:17:51 -0700

>AFAIK, they are reasonable in that they allow postings from non-members.

Thanks. Done. They did have to add me to their list.

Bob