Re: Multi6 next steps - consensus call

Personal opinion: we will be more effective if we clearly separate
the finishing off actions for the committed multi6 deliverables
from the starting up actions of the design & specification effort.
It may well be the same set of people, but it's just easier to manage
by formally making a separate WG for the new stuff. (As I think I
said in the meeting, we'd hope to charter the new work promptly
and be up and running before the Minneapolis (2005) IETF, but of
course that is an AD/IESG decision.)

     Brian

Eliot Lear wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>> 3. Do we agree to recommend a new working group in the Internet Area
>>    to follow up the design team approach?
>>
>> 4. Do we agree to close down multi6 when its current work is done?
> 
> 
> If the Internet Area Directors do not wish to carry the work forward, 
> then once the docs are done, close the group.  Otherwise, I would prefer 
> that the group simply be rehomed, rechartered, and perhaps new WG chairs 
> assigned if the old ones seem inappropriate or unwilling.  There are a 
> few reasons to do this:
> 
>  - allows any nits in the current documents to be addressed
>  - avoids misperception about the IETF's intent in this space
>    (work continues)
>  - avoids having to administratively blow away a very large
>    mailing list and then have to recreate it elsewhere.
> 
> Now, I would accept the argument that sometimes a fresh start is useful. 
>  But I don't think we're there.
> 
> Eliot
>