what to go (or not) to the charter?

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

Jim raised a good point that this should be discussed in a separate 
thread...

(co-chair hat on)

There are two separate issues:

1) [good] criteria on how to make decisions on documents that should
   be accepted and which should not, and

   This is more important issue to settle, because otherwise we'd
   likely need to require re-chartering to add new work items.

2) what would be the list of documents "kickstart" the new WG?
 a) anything in particular which SHOULD NOT be in the charter? *)
 b) anything particularly important, now missing, which should be
    explicitly in the charter at this point (note that the following
    list should be enough for WG's plate already) ?

Other related comments are also welcome.

....

*) a list of potential items was in the proposed charter, but here it 
is again: (never mind the dates..)

 Feb 05  Submit IPv6 deployment using VLANs to IESG for Info
 Mar 05  Submit document on IPsec w/ draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2 to IESG for Info
 Mar 05  Submit document describing issues with NAT-PT to IESG for Info
 Apr 05  Submit Enterprise Deployment Analysis to IESG for Info
 Apr 05  Submit IPv6 Network Architecture Protection to IESG for Info
 May 05  Submit IPv6 Security Overview to IESG for Info
 May 05  Submit ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks to IESG for Info

Remember that we also have the following older on-going projects:
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2 [waiting for AD's decision]
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-{onlinkassumption,v6onbydefault} [waiting for
                    fixes to get in or to move forward otherwise]
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure [waiting author revision]
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis [author revision/WG followup]

(hat off)

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings