Re: proposed new v6ops charter

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 05:53:05PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> 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.

Right, but I would assume drafts would be written to document the issues,
and those drafts become focuses for discussion.  An example might be the
onlink-by-default draft that Alain produced.  

Such drafts might then be published as Informational (bearing in mind Kurtis'
concern on "too many drafts"), or they could be used for the next revision
of an existing RFC, or they could just lead to modifications of a draft in 
progress in another WG, where the rationale is captured there.

In some cases the issue may not fit another WG, or an apparently appropriate
WG may not adopt the issue.   So I think we should have some valve in the
charter that does not prevent work being studied in v6ops if the WG approves
and a BoF/spin-out is not appropriate.  But I would hope that would be a
rare corner case.

I think the v6tc spin-out is working well, and I wouldn't like to see a v6ops
charter that prevented a similar spin-off in the future, so as long as the
"no mini-BoF" text allowed that, fine.

Tim