Re: proposed new v6ops charter

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

On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 12:42:28PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> FYI. The IPv6 distributed security has been presented in the security area
> in IETF60, has been sent to their list, inputs had been requested, etc.,
> etc., etc. No reply at all !
> 
> This is my fear about what it can happen with other works if they don't fit
> in v6ops and are *ignored* by other WGs that should take care of it. Is an
> issue, and probably requires some "mandate" from the IESG or IAB ?

One argument would be that if the security folks don't want to pick it up,
there's little chance of anything in the draft being taken forward and
implemented... i.e. the danger is that v6ops would create "white elephant"
solutions that people don't want.  We need an answer to that argument...
as it stands no reply = no interest.

In contrast, the NAP draft is an architectural document that describes how
the properties of v4+NAT can be achieved in IPv6 (and has identified some
gaps, such that the internal topology obfuscation, which Gunter has promised
some further thoughts on).   As such, it's an informational text that will
be cited as a useful BCP.

Tim