ngtrans -> v6ops

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

harald, i am proposing to step on your toes.  but it seems the best
way forward.  advice solicited

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <randy@iij.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
Cc: Bob Fink <bob@thefinks.com>,
    Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>,
    Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: draft-tsuchiya-mtp-00.txt
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:41:43 +0900

> What is the usual policy/procedure for individual submissions
> to be published as experimental?  Are they normally reviewed
> by the IESG and/or checked with WGs for possible conflict?

yup

> Fred Templin's request specifically asked for standards track
> publication, but the request from Kazuaki Tsuchiya does not
> request any particular status...

yup, noticed that.  he probably wants ps, but would settle if
we moved it ahead

> In v6ops we are trying to do something that I think is very
> important -- requiring that "coexistence mechanisms" are
> justified by a real-world need before they are published,
> and that the are published with appropriate applicability
> information based on analysis of their potential uses.

this behavior is bound to get you punished.  too rational.

> And, I don't see how we can do that effectively if it is
> possible (and perhaps easier) for people to get their
> mechanisms published on the individual track.

well, i think harald was too appeasing.  and i do not mind
forcing things back.  but i want to know i am doing the
right thing, that we agree, and that we do have a path that
is clear to the players that will allow their stuff to move
forward in an appropriate fashion.

i.e. i don't mind saying "stuff it" if i can tell them where
to stuff it and when and how we will be dealing with the
stuffin's

> However, there is also a strong (and compelling) argument
> that we should allow many of these mechanisms to be
> published as experimental RFCs, and only move the ones
> to the standards track that we believe have real-world
> applicability.

this seems a reasonable compromise.

> If we're going to do it that way, though, I'd rather
> publish them as experimental through v6ops, so that we can
> get them reviewed by the WG and can exert some control
> over the quality/quantity/etc. of mechanisms.

fine.

> Whichever one we pick, though, we need to know that the
> IESG as a whole will back us up.

i will take care of that part

randy