Subject: RE: proposed new v6ops charter

From: "Yan, Li \(Li\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:23:09 -0500

I missed the discussion on item3. Are we removing the itme3 because we
feel we don't have expertise or because we consider the work is done?

Thanks!

Li

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Pekka Savola
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: proposed new v6ops charter

> - not put back the applications section, as that seems to been done 
elsewhere, and the expertise is elsewhere.  This could be done as part 
of ops work as well.

>- remove item 3 on application development and v4 dependencies
(already done)

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:31:42 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

> feel we don't have expertise or because we consider the work is done?

We've already done what we figured out (2-3 years ago) we should do.

We could be open to new proposals (though I don't recall seeing any), 
but I also feel this WG may not have sufficient apps expertise on 
this.

Maybe it is time to put the responsibility of IPv6 and applications on 
the applications area? ;-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings