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

["Liu Min" <liumin@ict.ac.cn>]

I also want to know if we want to make some suggestion or present some
proposal for IPv6 Flow Label, where should we do it. When we introduce IPv6,
the Flow Label and Traffic Class, and its support for QoS are always one
topic. However, you can not present a QoS mechanism or a network measurement
tool using Flow Label and Traffic Class, because they are still experimental
and subject to change. 

 
Best Wishes,
 

Liu Min
 
Institute of Computing Technology
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Tel: (86-10) 6256 5533-9240 
E-mail: liumin@ict.ac.cn


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Sham Chakravorty
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:24 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: A personal take on WG's priorities..
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>