Re: initial issues

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Jim;

> Once we all get to know each other and get some productive stuff done then
> have it by all means.  But lets just get a charter, strategy, begin
> requirements definition and not try to change what one may or may not like
> in IPv6 right now.  That is really why IPng exists.  This list is not a back
> door to change what is in IPng's charter.

You misunderstand the point.

Multi6 will be a place to discuss, for multihoming, IPv6
routing/addressing, which is currently withing a scope of IPng WG.

According to your logic, such WG can not exist.

Worse, the expected changes are on transport/application protocols.

IPng WG is chartered explicitely not to discuss such issues.

	TCP/UDP: The IPng Working Group will specify the
	procedures for hosts to compute and verify TCP/UDP
	pseudo-headers. Any other changes to TCP beyond
	making TCP work with IPng are out of scope of the working
	group and should be dealt with by a TCPng Working Group. 

So, it is a scope violation for members of IPng WG claim "TCP
protocol changes are not acceptable".

Note that there is no TCPng WG.

							Masataka Ohta