Re: NGtrans closing procedures

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.
>  
>
Although I agree with you on that particular point, the v6ops has not (yet)
formally accepted this document as wg item, thus, as part of the process
of shutting down NGtrans, it has to be recycled as personal ID until
v6ops decides to take it.

>The same argument applies to
>
>draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-dns-01.txt (expired, but something's needed)
>
IMHO, this one should be handed over to DNSop.

>draft-savola-ngtrans-6to4-security-01.txt (no consensus yet, but needed)
>
Another likely candidate for v6ops if this group decides to take on
6to4 evolution.

>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
>  
>
    - Alain.