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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Alain Durand wrote:
> Essentially, there is work needed in 4 areas:
>
> 1. Tunneling
> - finish the work on assisted tunneling, zeroconf tunneling, 3GPP tunneling 
> requirements
> - finish the analysis of existing protocol candidates
> - design new one(s) if needed
> - finish the work on tunnel end-point discovery
>
> 2. Protocol maintenance
> - deprecate useless mechanism
> - clarify/refine some mechanism (e.g. 6to4)
> - move some mechanisms along standard track
>
> 3. Operational issues
> - renumbering doc
> - IPv6 on by default
> - operational security docs
> - result from operational experience
>
> 4.  Finish the work on scenario.
>
> A natural evolution of NGtrans/v6ops would be to shut down v6Ops
> by declaring victory on (4), and create two new working group,
> a short to medium term one, focusing on (1) & (2), and a long  term one 
> focusing on 3.

1 and 2 are certainly separable pieces of this puzzle.  However, it is 
important to put in place good policies on which kind of new tunneling 
work would be accepted (would it e.g., require a rechartering) so that 
the "v6mechs" WG would not become a "swamp".

3 and 4 are something that could be doable by "trimmed-down" v6ops; 
I'd see no particular use in shutting down a WG and springing up a new 
one in its place.  (4) needs to be finished, and there might be useful 
work coming down at that pipe down the road (like the BB ISP 
document).  I don't think the WG would need to initiate actively new 
work on 4, but if there were solid proposals on better documentation 
of existing scenarios, I don't see why that could not be documented.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings