Subject: Revised 6MAN Charter

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:33:27 -0400

All,
     I have revised the charter for the proposed IPv6 maintenance WG
based on comments received.  Please review.

Regards,
Brian

IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair(s):

     Robert Hinden <[email-masked]>
     Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):

     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
     Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:

     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists: [email-masked]

Description of Working Group:

The 6man working group is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and advancement
of the IPv6 protocol specifications and addressing architecture.  It is not chartered to
develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications.
The working group will address protocol limitations/issues discovered during
deployment and operation.  It will also serve as a venue for discussing the proper location
for working on IPv6-related issues within the IETF.

The working group's work items are as follows:

     o Shepherd completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
     o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation document
     o Complete standardization of IPv6 over PPP Compression Negotiation as a Proposed Standard
     o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses (ULA-C)

All new work items not listed above require the approval of the working
group and IESG before they will be taken on by the working group.

Goals and Milestones:

Oct 2007     Submit RH0 Deprecation specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Jan 2008     Submit PPP Compression Negotiation specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Mar 2008     Determine way forward for ULA-C specification

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:14:57 -0400

Hi Brian,
   I would like the WG charter to be a bit more wider.e.g. Allow other 
updates to the base specs, if needed. One such item that I would like to 
be considered is the usefulness of hop by hop options.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-krishnan-ipv6-hopbyhop-01.txt

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:03:50 -0700

Suresh,

On Aug 20, 2007, at 11:14 AM, ext Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>   I would like the WG charter to be a bit more wider.e.g. Allow  
> other updates to the base specs, if needed. One such item that I  
> would like to be considered is the usefulness of hop by hop options.
>

Why do you think this wouldn't be in the scope of the current charter  
text?  Other than needing AD approval, of course.

Bob

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:00:47 -0400

Hi Suresh,
      I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG 
wishes to adopt.  So, if/when this working group is formed, you can 
formally request the WG to consider adoption of that work item.

      Or are you arguing for including that work item in the initial 
charter?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:11:22 -0400

Hi Brian,

> formally request the WG to consider adoption of that work item.

Sounds good.

>      Or are you arguing for including that work item in the initial 

No. I think the the initial work items are fine as they are. I just 
believe it must be easy to work on other maintenance updates to the base 
specs (i.e. no recharter). If this is the case, I am fine with the 
current charter.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:48:47 -0400

> On 8/20/07 4:00 PM, "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>    I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG wishes to
adopt.

I believe this is the wrong thing to do for any wg in general and for a
Œmaintenance¹ wg in particular.
The charter is a contract between the wg and the IETF represented by the AD
about what should and what should not be delivered,
this is not an open ended list of documents that the wg may feel like
working on.

  - Alain.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:42:13 +0300

Alain,

> >
> > I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG wishes
> to adopt.
>
> I believe this is the wrong thing to do for any wg in general and for
> a ‘maintenance’ wg in particular.
> The charter is a contract between the wg and the IETF represented by
> the AD about what should and what should not be delivered,

I fully agree with your principle, but this is tricky for a maintenance
WG. We do not know what bugs we are going to find or what spec
clarifications we are going to need!

Let me be clear: 6MAN is NOT a venue for people to develop
new features or to make major changes in the way that current
features of IPv6 work. It is strictly chartered to complete
current work and then only maintenance. As the charter
says:

It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions
to the IPv6 specifications. The working group will address
protocol limitations/issues discovered during deployment
and operation.

We also have a statement in the charter that requires IESG
approval of new work items (to be changed to AD approval
based on comments we received privately). This along with
the quoted text above is just about the right balance in
my opinion; the WG knows that it cannot do everything
but we do not need to list future bugs beforehand.

Jari

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:46:47 -0400

Jari,

I would agree with the balance you suggest. It is different from what was
stated by the chair.

  - Alain.

On 8/21/07 12:42 AM, "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> > a Œmaintenance¹ wg in particular.