Re: proposed new v6ops charter

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-11-15, at 21.59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Let's try to see it from another perspective.
>
> Some people at v6ops believes is interesting and necessary to working 
> in
> topic "a". This topic fits very well in WG "x" charter, but WG "x", 
> don't
> care (may be they are not sufficiently aware about IPv6, or they have
> already too much work, etc.). If the v6ops people can't convince (or 
> they
> don't have enough "participants" to be strong enough in WG "x"), this 
> not
> necessarily means that topic "a" is not interesting, right ? Is more a
> question of newcomers with more work starting to participate in an 
> existing
> WG which is already busy ...

I just fail to see what issues around IPv6 would be so special that it 
needs special treatment and can't be handled in the respective areas? 
If I come up with this really interesting security problem in IPv4, and 
the security area does show any interest at all or are too overworked, 
can I then set up the v4ops and discuss it there?

If a certain area in the IETF is overloaded or unaware of IPv6, then 
THOSE are the problems we need to address. Not pushing ahead at any 
cost somewhere else.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQZm3IaarNKXTPFCVEQIRwwCfRoRI9rt8KgfeSK7T/9fTm+7fHIIAnAmG
M0uqzFiLogNaoWCJxoST6zfD
=guGg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----