Re: NGtrans closing procedures

Hi Brian,

In order to accept work into v6ops, we need a current I-D
(at least one of these is expired), agreement that the work
is within our charter, agreement from our ADs regarding
milestone/goal additions, and WG consensus to accept a
particular document.

So, if you think that v6ops should be doing work in this area,
feel free to start that discussion on the v6ops list.  It
is certainly within our charter to discuss needed changes or
enhancements to 6to4.  If the WG is interested in doing work
based on these documents, we should figure out a reasonable
schedule for that work and propose milestones to Randy &
Bert.

In the meantime, we need to complete the administrivia of
closing down ngtrans.  But, that won't stop us from moving
these documents into v6ops if/when that is appropriate.

Margaret


At 02:48 AM 10/9/02, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Alain,
>
>....
> > Support for Multicast over 6to4 Networks (6TO4-MULTICAST)
> > is ngtrans ID
> > 
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-multicast-01.txt>
> >
> > becomes personal ID
> > 
> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-ngtrans-6to4-multicast-01.txt>
>
>I don't understand this proposal. Since 6to4 is on the menu for v6ops, it
>makes no sense to cut this draft loose as an individual submission.
>The 6to4 solution is incomplete without multicast.
>
>The same argument applies to
>
>draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-dns-01.txt (expired, but something's needed)
>draft-savola-ngtrans-6to4-security-01.txt (no consensus yet, but needed)
>
>One option of course would be to spin up a 6to4 WG narrowly focussed
>on these three drafts plus any updates to RFC 3056 - but it seems like
>a lot of overhead rather than just taking these items in v6ops.
>
>    Brian