Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Fred,

>Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
>lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
>provide a better fit.

It was our intention to write a charter that limits the v6ops 
WG to work on the minimal required set of IPv6 transition
tools/mechanisms, and Itojun and I plan to be fairly conservative
about enforcing the requirements of the charter in this area.

It is our goal for v6ops to primarily focus on the operational 
and security issues that arise in the deployment of IPv6, not on 
anticipating transition issues and developing a transition toolkit.

This does not mean that we won't standardize any new transition
tools.  However, we will only standardize a new tool if it solves
a well-defined, general IPv6 deployment problem that cannot be 
satisfactorily addressed using other means (such as existing 
transition tools and/or operational practices).

The IETF may also develop transition tools for IPv6 deployment
problems related to specific application and/or transport protocols,
but that work would be done in the proper WGs/areas, not within
v6ops.

Margaret