Subject: RE: Moving forward

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 05:26:51 -0400

David, 

 > it is now getting time that we start to move from the analysis phase
 > to standarization. As you all know, in general the Operations area
 > doesn't design new protocols. This means we cannot standarize the
 > solutions in the v6ops working group.

=> Does this mean that proposals like Teredo will not be 
standardised in this Area? 

Hesham

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:42:01 +0100

> standardised in this Area? 

I am confused, why was the transition work moved to Operations Area then if
there actually was never any way we could specify new mechanisms or finalise
existing ones?   And why talk of a temporary ban when it could never have
been lifted in the v6ops WG?

This seems wrong, we should have made an "IPv6 Transition" WG under the
Internet Area.   I recall the reasoning for v6ops at the time was to send
the message that "IPv6 is operational", which is good, but apparently it
was in fact a curse :(

It's a shame some of these little IETF rules aren't known by everyone...

Tim

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:20:54 -0700

Hesham,

> standardised in this Area? 

We first need to officially hear from the working group which ones are
going to be needed for the minimum set, than we can decide on the
exact logistics for how the work will proceed. I have asked the
workinggroup chairpeople to do this in manner that allows us to
quickly move forward.

In general, protocol work will indeed not happen in the Operations
area. However, the careful reader will note that I used 'in general'
and there could be circumstances where there is more expertise in this
area and where it is more efficient to do the work in this area.

David Kessens
---

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 13:31:41 -0700

Tim,

> been lifted in the v6ops WG?

My message was about 'moving forward'. This process will allow us to
finally start moving proposals towards standards track. 

David Kessens
---