Re: proposed new v6ops charter

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I mostly agree with your proposed changes, but I've some concerns on number
> 6. I think it should stay as we have it now, because it already says that
> first we will try to do that work (if required), in the most appropriate WG,
> and only will be done in v6ops if there is not another option on that
> direction.

The point is that v6ops would, as written, just identify the issues, 
not act as a "mini-BoF" for solutions to those issues.  There are more 
generic avenues for that, and if something important comes along, 
rechartering is always possible, of course.

> Also not sure if 3 and 7 should be removed, even if the work is already
> done. May be to state that this has been already accomplished ? It seems to
> me that removing it is like "canceling" (or out-chartering) the work already
> done, which obviously is not what we want to do, right ? Note that I'm not
> opposing to this change, just will like to make sure that is the right way
> to proceed.

Umm.  So, what you suggest would be keeping the charter as is? 3, 6 
and 7 were the sections where there were changes :).

The work that has already been accomplished is typically taken out 
from cluttering the charter, and I see no issue with that.

> Finally, if we accept as a WG item (which I agree), the IPv6 NAP, then we
> should be fair and accept also, at least, the IPv6 Distributed Security
> problem statement and requirements documents.

IPv6 NAP is not accepted yet though there seemed to be strong support 
for it at the meeting.  Putting stuff on the milestones is no 
commitment one way or the other; especially, even if something wasn't 
in the milestones, it can still be added easily.

In the particular example you cite, the question would be whether 
those would be useful enough in this WG without a solution they call 
for, and if there is no solution, there is no sense in publishing them 
(as-is in any case).  From that perspective, I personally think these 
could form a core for a BoF to try to get those security geeks in the 
same room with v6 people who are worried about these issues.

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