[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Multi6 next steps - consensus call



Personal opinion: we will be more effective if we clearly separate
the finishing off actions for the committed multi6 deliverables
from the starting up actions of the design & specification effort.
It may well be the same set of people, but it's just easier to manage
by formally making a separate WG for the new stuff. (As I think I
said in the meeting, we'd hope to charter the new work promptly
and be up and running before the Minneapolis (2005) IETF, but of
course that is an AD/IESG decision.)

    Brian

Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian,

3. Do we agree to recommend a new working group in the Internet Area
   to follow up the design team approach?

4. Do we agree to close down multi6 when its current work is done?


If the Internet Area Directors do not wish to carry the work forward, then once the docs are done, close the group. Otherwise, I would prefer that the group simply be rehomed, rechartered, and perhaps new WG chairs assigned if the old ones seem inappropriate or unwilling. There are a few reasons to do this:

 - allows any nits in the current documents to be addressed
 - avoids misperception about the IETF's intent in this space
   (work continues)
 - avoids having to administratively blow away a very large
   mailing list and then have to recreate it elsewhere.

Now, I would accept the argument that sometimes a fresh start is useful. But I don't think we're there.

Eliot