Subject: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on charter-ietf-v6ops-04-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:39:07 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-v6ops-04-00: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-v6ops/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm a Yes, but I'm not a Responsible AD Yes. 

The ballot tab says "ready w/o external review", but both questions are
on the ballot itself. 

I wouldn't object to external review if other people thought it was
important, but I'm happier if people in other SDOs assume we're already
looking at deployment experience :D.

The following is a nit, of course.

The last sentence in 

"The global deployment of IPv6 is underway, creating an Internet
consisting of IPv4-only, IPv6-only, IPv4-IPv6 dual-stack, and
IPv6+translation networks and nodes. This deployment must be properly
handled to avoid the division of the Internet into separate IPv4 and
IPv6 networks, ensuring addressing and connectivity for all IPv4 and
IPv6 nodes.  An important aspect of that has been the shutdown of IPv4
in some networks, which has resulted in innovations in network
operation." 

took me three reads to parse. If you think it could be more clear, I
might suggest replacing it with

"An important aspect of IPv6 deployment has been the shutdown of IPv4 in
some networks, and this shutdown has resulted in innovations in network
operation".

And, now that I think I understand what is being said, I wonder if 

"An important aspect of IPv6 deployment has been the shutdown of IPv4 in
some networks, and issues and opportunities from these shutdowns have
resulted in innovations in network operation",

matching your new goal #3 (issues, opportunities, innovations) might be
clearer.

But Yes, please change the charter to do this work, however you describe
it!

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:30 -0700

I'm OK with your final formulation. Do you need an updated file, or can we simply assume that will be changed before posting?

> On Apr 13, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:03:05 -0500

Hi, Fred,

On Apr 13, 2017 13:53, "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

I'm OK with your final formulation. Do you need an updated file, or can we
simply assume that will be changed before posting?

I'll defer to the responsible AD.

Warren, could you let Fred know what the right thing to do is?

Thanks!

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:28:26 -0400

> Warren, could you let Fred know what the right thing to do is?

I just edited the proposed charter with your addition. Thanks Spencer and Fred.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf