Subject: Multi6 next steps - consensus call

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:55:56 +0100

Multi6 people,

At the meetings this week, the design team drafts were discussed,
and consensus in the room was positive for the following questions:

1. Do we agree that the way forward is the direction and
    work produced by the design team [modulo the missing pieces,
    including choosing site-exit routers]?

2. Do we agree on the need for a solution architecture document?

3. Do we agree to recommend a new working group in the Internet Area
    to follow up the design team approach?

4. Do we agree to close down multi6 when its current work is done?

If you *disagree* with any of the above, please respond to the
list, with a short explanation, in the next few days.

    Brian + Kurtis
    co-chairs

PS: the drafts in question are
     Multihoming Level 3 Shim Approach
     (draft-nordmark-multi6dt-shim-00.txt)
     Hash Based Addresses (HBA)
     (draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-hba-00.txt)
     Functional decomposition of the M6 protocol
     (draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-functional-dec-00.txt)
     Failure Detection and Locator Selection in Multi6
     (draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00.txt)
     Multi6 Application Referral Issues
     (draft-nordmark-multi6dt-refer-00.txt)

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:22:34 -0500

Brian,

> 4. Do we agree to close down multi6 when its current work is done?

If the Internet Area Directors do not wish to carry the work forward, 
then once the docs are done, close the group.  Otherwise, I would prefer 
that the group simply be rehomed, rechartered, and perhaps new WG chairs 
assigned if the old ones seem inappropriate or unwilling.  There are a 
few reasons to do this:

  - allows any nits in the current documents to be addressed
  - avoids misperception about the IETF's intent in this space
    (work continues)
  - avoids having to administratively blow away a very large
    mailing list and then have to recreate it elsewhere.

Now, I would accept the argument that sometimes a fresh start is useful. 
  But I don't think we're there.

Eliot

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 21:37:59 +0100

Personal opinion: we will be more effective if we clearly separate
the finishing off actions for the committed multi6 deliverables
from the starting up actions of the design & specification effort.
It may well be the same set of people, but it's just easier to manage
by formally making a separate WG for the new stuff. (As I think I
said in the meeting, we'd hope to charter the new work promptly
and be up and running before the Minneapolis (2005) IETF, but of
course that is an AD/IESG decision.)

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 10:23:20 +0100

Eliot Lear was the only person to comment, somewhat disagreeing
tactically with items 3 and 4, but not with the intent to do
the work in the Internet Area. The chairs take this as a consensus
to open discussion with the Area Directors, as well as
urging the design team to tidy up their drafts (item 1) and
draft the solution architecture (item 2).

    Brian + Kurtis