Subject: Feedback on proposed charter from the IESG

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:43:31 -0800

The IESG discussed the proposed recharter for v6ops. 

I did not ask the IESG for approval yet since I felt that 
the charter still needs a bit more review from the community and the
upcoming holidays is a suboptimal period for community review (I will
be out of the office myself for example).

The feedback that I received so far (and that I agree with) is the
following:

The charter is still a bit open ended. What is really missing is good
criteria on how to make decisions on documents that will be accepted
and which will not. 

For example, the list of proposed milestones is rather extensive and
we were not entirely convinced that every single document on the list
really needs to be worked on in the v6ops working group.

As is not uncommon in the Operations Area, this working group will
have some topics in the charter that will be somewhat open ended.
However, that doesn't mean that we should take on any work that has
remotely something to do with the operational aspects of running an
ipv6 Internet network.

Questions that come to my mind that are important to ask are:

Is there really an audience that needs a particular document (eg. not
just a very specific audience but a broad group of users)? Is there
expertise in the working group to work on the topic (eg. more than
just a few people should have a good understanding) ? Did the people
that express willingness to work on a topic actually read the proposed
internet draft ? Are there more than a few people willing to
contribute, and an even larger group to review the document ?

I hope that this helps to guide the discussion to get a solid new
charter in place.

David Kessens
---

---

From: "Hannigan, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:23:04 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of EricLKlein
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 3:04 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Re:Feedback on proposed charter from the IESG
> 
> 
> From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
> > Then, if we say "ISP Networks (including Core, HFC/Cable, 
> DSL & Dial-up
> > networks),", we should mention all the technologies (for 
> example PLC),
> > otherwise is better to just say "including Core and any 
> kind of access
> > network). Right ?
> >
> 
> I would prefer phrasing like  "including Core and all types of access
> networks."

If you go beyond "ISP network" people will get confused. "Including x and y,

but you didn't mention dispersion radio ISP NCI....etc.".

I think you'd be better served with "ISP network". It's an understood and
time defined phrase.

-M<