Re: (ngtrans) v6 considered operational

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

I'll attempt to answer Tim's questions, and other questions as they
arise.  I hope you'll understand, though, that we don't actually know
the answers to all of these questions, yet.  Some of them are being 
worked out now, and others will be answered by consensus of the new 
v6ops WG, after it has been chartered by the IESG.

>I note the list of drafts to migrate to v6ops is empty, and that the list
>of migrated ngtrans RFCs is not complete.   Will everything be carried over
>to v6ops before ngtrans is closed?   (I would have assumed so, but the
>list is partial?)

All ngtrans work will not automatically migrate to v6ops.

v6ops will be a new WG, and it will have its own charter and its
own set of work.  We will only be moving ngtrans work items to v6ops
that clearly fit within the v6ops charter, and that are accepted by
a consensus of the v6ops WG (after it is formed, of course).

Over time, we may pull in additional ngtrans work items, if the
need for them is justified by our deployment scenarios work.

The ngtrans chairs are currently discussing what will happen to 
the ngtrans WG IDs when the group closes.  Options include moving the
work to other WGs or reverting the work to individual draft status.
You are all welcome to provide your input to this process on the
ngtrans list.

RFCs that have already been published do not require a WG to own them.
We've made an exception for the standards-track transition mechanisms
RFCs, because some group needs to be responsible for updating them
(some of them have known issues) and advancing them on the standards
track, if appropriate.

>What's the ngtrans/v6ops overlap period, if any?

We have not yet determined a closing date for ngtrans.

>I applaud the goal to push v6 out to the other WGs but I don't see anything 
>in the charter itself about how this will be achieved, either by process or 
>milestones?  I think for v6ops to succeed, this is quite critical, else
>v6ops will become a dumping ground for items that should be in other wgs.

Changes are already underway in several groups and areas to accept 
responsibility for IPv6 within their WGs, and we'll have to continue
working with the IESG to make this happen.  I agree that a WG doesn't
have any real leverage over other WGs, but we can identify problems and
provide guidance to other WG chairs and the IESG about places where
more attention to IPv6 is needed.

>Have the plans for the future of the 6bone been shifted also?

This is being discussed now, and I'll leave it to others to answer.

>Will some items from ipv6 wg also migrate to v6ops?  

I don't know.  Are there things that you think should migrate?

Margaret