RE: comment on unmanaged analysis presentation/doc

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Margaret,

draft-privatename-function-00.txt.  

But what I think I am hearing is that we have a potential log jam via the scenarios being done?  I do not believe those will be done till July/August 2003?  Thats too late for current IPv6 deployment if true?

thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 2:38 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
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
>