Flow Label [Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..]

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Sham, the flow label is low on my personal priority list.
The reason I was eager to get RFC 3697 done is to set boundary
conditions on its use, but developing the actual use cases
seems to me to be off the critical path for the IETF.

Looking at your email address, I can see why you might give it
higher priority - but do you need the IETF for that right now,
as long as you obey RFC 3697?

    Brian

Sham Chakravorty wrote:
> 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