RE: comment on unmanaged analysis presentation/doc

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Jim,

What do you mean by "send individual IDs for tools to v6ops"?

Anyone can submit an individual ID, but v6ops may not adopt a work
item (i.e. publish a WG ID) that isn't covered in our charter.

Margaret


At 02:30 PM 9/19/02, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Margaret,
>
> OK.  So the general Internet community cannot send individual IDs for 
> tools to v6ops?
> I view tsp as tool not as transition mechanism?
>
> thanks
> /jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:20 PM
> > To: Bound, Jim
> > Cc: Love; Pekka Savola; Marc Blanchet; huitema@microsoft.com;
> > satapati@cisco.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: comment on unmanaged analysis presentation/doc
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > >the key is if the chairs can bless this work and say lets go and do
> > >tsp.  Or if I were marc and fred I would be hard pressed
> > into putting a
> > >lot of work into this.
> >
> > It isn't covered in our charter to "bless" any new transition
> > mechanisms
> > work unless/until the need for a new mechanism is identified
> > and document
> > in the scenario/analysis effort.
> >
> > If we keep pushing on the analysis documents, I hope we will get to a
> > point in the next few months where we do have consensus to start work
> > on some of the needed transition mechanisms.  But, we aren't there
> > yet.
> >
> > We will also need to make sure that we understand how the
> > existing transition
> > mechanisms RFCs do/don't fit together, so that we understand
> > the impact
> > of introducing new mechanisms into the overall architecture.
> >
> > Margaret
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >