Re: charter

[Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>]

Eliot,

> Can you please forward me a single message (other than yours) that objected
> to the merits of my proposal?

I thought both Randy and Jim expressed sympathy for this view, though
I only have a copy of the latter message. I don't recall anyone else
chiming in saying we should broaden the scope.

> > That is not to rule out discussion about IPv4 issues
> > (and indeed, there is much to be learned from IPv4). But there is a
> > danger that focussing on IPv4 will bog us down on issues that are not
> > directly applicable to IPv6.

> I would agree with wording that requires us to solve the problem for IPv6,
> so long as it does not preclude from the get go mechanisms that are
> applicable to IPv4.

I view it only as precluding approaches that are applicable only to
IPv4. Are there any? I find it hard to believe that would be the case
given the architectural similiarities between IPv4 and IPv6.

> More specifically, I agree that if there is usefulness to the
> enlarged address space, we should take advantage ofit.  However, if
> we simply preclude solutions that solve the problem for IPv4 as
> well,

I don't think we are really doing that. We are presumably only
precluding solutions that are specific to IPv4 only, which I am not
convinced even exist.

> we may end up with two completely different multihoming
> mechanisms (because another one will come into existance out of
> necessity) for no good reason.  And that will pose a substantial
> operational burden to everyone, again, for no good reason.

I would hope that if we truly head in the direction of two
incompatable approaches/solutions, clear heads will prevail upon us to
think carefully about this as opposed to it just happening. I
personally don't think the charter of this WG is going to set the
stage for such an incompatability.

Note also, that the current charter doesn't say this WG will SOLVE the
problem even for IPv6. It says we will start LOOKING AT approaches,
but we will then need a recheck (e.g., recharter and IESG approval)
before we actually go work on a specific solution. I would expect that
one of discussion points at that point is applicability to IPv4 and
what should be done about that.

My $0.02 anyway. Other opinions welcome.

Thomas