Subject: RE: Recommendation v Requirements [Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:42:53 -0700

Brian / Eliot,

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> I submit that there are several reasons that this
> group has been (too) quiet.

By comparing to another group (ipv6mh) that functions like an IETF WG,
with for the most part the same people as this one, deals with the same
topic, and that has not been quiet at all over the past 8 months, I can
identify two things that make the difference between success and
stagnation: charter and leadership.

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Replace "requirements" with "recommendations" and I'm
>> with you.

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Sure. And in answer to Eliot, its usefulness is to
> provide a frame in which to think about proposed
> solutions.

This would require a re-charter. As you mentioned in another post, we
might as well go over the BOF process again.

Michel.