RE: A personal take on WG's priorities..

["Sham Chakravorty" <schakra@mitre.org>]

In this regard, would it make sense to add IPv6 Flow Label usage in a
"sub-WG" area such as Enterprise or IPv6 Traffic Modeling?  One would think
this is one of the  key IPv6 operations areas.  It seems to me we are
focused only in a few, narrowly focused areas of IPv6 operations (as
reflected in the charter).

Sham Chakravorty

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
Of EricLKlein
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:30 AM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..


From: "Brian
> Quite obviously, it would be outrageous to attempt all this
> in one WG. IMHO, we need to either out-source work to other
> WGs or create several new WGs with focussed charters.
> Especially, we need to separate "getting known stuff
> fully operational" from "doing new stuff."

Is it possible to try to set up "sub-WG" areas and recruit more specialized
people into these areas?

I am thinking (of the top of my head) of three subgroups:
- Enterprise - would include migration issues, etc.
- ISPs - would handle tunnels, interconnections, etc
- IPv6 Security - would handle NAT-PT, depreciating NAT in IPv6, etc.

Just a thought.
Eric