RE: charter

[Jim.Bound@nokia.com]

This is a rare moment.  But I fully and 100% agree with Tony.  We need to
state solutions folks.

Also I want to add.  We have a shit load of talent on this list from
operator, real implementors of routers (people who write code), product
engineers, architects who have defined/designed et al stuff in this
community and "SHIPPED" real products. Why is it that I get this feeling the
charter has to second guess this talented group of people and thats how it
reads to me.  If we say (and that is a big if with the diverse technical,
social, and architectural purity views on this list) this is the answer I
don't think the collective expertise of the IESG is more knowledgable, more
wise, or has to deal with as many real product and deployment issues as this
collective list.
Just checking. We live by no kings and running code.  I get the feeling from
words in the charter that kings get to tell us stuff and running code (or
someone running v6 operationally from the outcome) is secondary?  Not a good
management way to speak to us worker bees and clearly not a great motivator
as the IESGs main job is like a manager in the IETF.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Tony Li [mailto:tli@Procket.com]
> Sent: Thursday,February 22,2001 5:16 AM
> To: Thomas Narten
> Cc: Eliot Lear; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: charter 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  | 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.
> 
> 
> If we do not solve this problem for v6 and get started on getting it
> deployed pretty much as fast as we can, then the core routers 
> are going to
> start falling over dead.  The Internet as we know it will effectively
> stop growing.  All other considerations are, at this point, 
> irrelevant.
> 
> Can we please all FOCUS?
> 
> Thank you,
> Tony
> 
> p.s. Reference: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0102/ppt/li/index.htm
>