Re: proposed new v6ops charter

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Pekka,

I didn't want to keep 3 and 7. I just wondered if it makes sense to delete
something that we did, instead of including a note as "DONE". Anyway, is not
important, probably I never noticed this when other charters had been
updated and as you say is just ok removing both. I guess also an archive of
the previous versions of the charter should be available somewhere, for
clarity.

I agree that we should only identify the issues, but identifying the issues
should be open enough to host within the WG, as WG items, those documents
that analyze those issues.

Not sure why not the WG could act, if required, as a "mini-BoF" to charter
those solutions. What it will be wrong if we do that ? There is any rational
to avoid this which I'm missing ?

For the same reason, even if we don't provide a solution, should be fine to
describe an issue. I agree that in some cases a new WG is better (via BoF or
whatever), as we decided for the v6tc, but while that process doesn't move
forward, those documents should be WG documents. Otherwise, please, just
remove from the charter all the security thing, but not decide w/o a
consensus from the WG, that of course, should agree with the charter, what
is WG item and what's not. We started to change how we manage this, right ?
;-)

Regards,
Jordi


> De: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:53:05 +0200 (EET)
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: proposed new v6ops charter
> 
> 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
> 
>