Re: charter

["Brian Haberman" <haberman@nortelnetworks.com>]

Eliot,

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> > > Therefore, I recommend a substitution, as follows:
> >
> > > The primary goal of this group is to recommend multihoming mechanisms
> that
> > > scale far beyond where we are today.  To meet that goal, this group may
> > > consider any advantages IPv6  has over IPv4 (e.g., larger address
> space),
> > > but is not precluded from making recommendations for IPv4.
> >
> > I did not make this change. The sense I get is that this WG is should
> > focus on IPv6.
> 
> Can you please forward me a single message (other than yours) that objected
> to the merits of my proposal?  Also, while I respect your opinion, I really
> wish you would have shared it earlier, before revising the charter.

I agree with Thomas on this point.  As was stated, solutions that
apply to v4 as well as v6 are reasonable, but we should not spend the
WG time discussing v4 solutions.  If a solution proposed works for
v4, great, otherwise we could spend valuable time on v4 issues rather
than the task of finding a multihoming solution(s) for v6.

I see the work coming out of this group as being for v6.  However,
if v4 wants to borrow the solutions, that's fine.

My $0.02,
Brian

> 
> > 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.  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, 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.
> 
> To be absolutely clear, I am NOT proposing a constant IPv4 v. IPv6 merits
> discussion, and I think such discussion should be out of bounds.
> 
> > Also, if it becomes clear that something
> > comes up that really applies to IPv4 and indicates a focussed effort
> > on an IPv4 approach is desirable, there is nothing to prevent us from
> > proposing a recharter or additional WG.
> 
> Such sentences are a polite way of saying,  "I disagree.  Go roll your own."
> 
> The IETF was formed out of operational need.  The charter you propose, it
> seems to me, unnecessarily skirts that operational need of the moment.
> 
> Respectfully (but perhaps not as politely),
> 
> Eliot Lear