Re: proposed new v6ops charter

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

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 09:54:22AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> Do you have further examples in mind to talk about here?  IMHO, it's 
> good to have examples, and I didn't remove them (even if they were 
> done) because they were illustrating which kind of issues the charter 
> was referring to.

I would agree to keep examples.   maybe you could cite things like multicast
with transition.   we should hint that external wg specific items will be
distilled to those wgs (dnsop, mboned, etc).
 
> Agreed, though the item 2 has slightly different focus as I read it. 
> It seems to say, "check and keep checking the existing IPv6 
> specifications that they work OK", while item 1 seems to say "identify 
> missing pieces which need new work".

I would assume our main feedback is to ipv6 wg, but how much longer do we
see the ipv6 wg existing? :)
 
> True, if item 1 is made generic -- there is a danger in too much 
> genericity that one forgets which specific kinds of tasks (like 2 and 
> 4 here) have been put forward to the WG.

I see 1 as a general statement of intent, with 4 being a specific example.
 
> >I thought we were done with that.
> 
> What do you call the campus transition document then?  Granted the 
> text in the second paragraph should be tweaked a bit to fit.

I agree with Pekka on this one.
 
> Another related document was the description of broadband ISP IPv6 
> deployment efforts.

Yes, that was good and useful.
 
> >To up-level this discussion, my feedback to the chairs and the AD is 
> >that v6ops should focus more on ops issues. The target of this wg 
> >should be to document in RFCs issues that came during deployment 
> >with suggested workaround and/or send draft in the relevant wg when 
> >something need to be changed in protocol specs.
> 
> "Issues that come during deployment" can be interpreted either widely 
> or narrowly.   And depending on that..

True, but I think that is a focus, and thus should be what point 1 says,
which actually it rather does :)

> If we project the draft charter you'd like to see to documents 
> produced by this WG, or proposed to this WG, as concrete examples, 
> which do you should have been or be in scope:

Good question.  Most of them.  MIP scenarios should be pushed to mip6
perhaps (or a miptrans BoF), and distributed security certainly to the
security area (as a BoF in IETF62), as should tschofenig's draft, I think.

The rest should be v6ops wg at present, as they are operational without
specific applicability to other WGs (though line items may come out of
them for other WGs, e.g. IPv6 WG for perhaps some renumbering support
requirements).

-- 
Tim