Subject: (ngtrans) draft-durand-ngtrans-nat64-nat46-00.txt

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:32:27 +0900

i'm very unhappy that charis making exception on this draft.
	at IETF53 a policy was set so that we do not introduce new transition
	mechanisms until we are done with scenarios/applicability analysis.

	even though, draft-durand-ngtrans-nat64-nat46-00.txt got a slot.
	it's not fair.

itojun

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 05:57:04 +0200

> 	mechanisms until we are done with scenarios/applicability analysis.

Not exactly. What was agreed if that the chairs will not forward
any existing work item to the IESG.

> 	even though, draft-durand-ngtrans-nat64-nat46-00.txt got a slot.

Even though the name of the draft was on the original agenda
(which probably was a mistake, I apologize for that),
what was presented was not a new tool,
but environments identified by other documents
that are problematic and that may benefit from
new tools to be designed.

Identifying gaps in our current solution set is as important
as winnowing down the number of useful tools.

	- Alain.

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:05:06 +0900

Alain Durand wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2002, at 04:32 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
wrote:

To be clear, what I sent to the list after the last meeting was:
' ...  Until those documents are available, the IESG has no context to
evaluate the tools against. For this reason, there will be a hold placed
on all other ngtrans projects at least until IETF-54 in Yokohama. This
means that there will be no existing project work forwarded to the IESG,
and no new projects accepted.  ...'

If you will note, I did not even ask the group if this should be
accepted as a working group item.

The other documents referred to here do not reflect the consensus of the
working group as they are the starting point for focused discussion and
debate, not finished works. The issues identified during Alain's
presentation reflect further input to that debate, to resolve the
question about the real problem that needs to be solved and the
implications of various approaches. 

Once we reach consensus on a problem that needs to be solved, and
analysis shows there is a gap, we will have the basis for describing
additional or significantly revised tools. What we need to be very
careful of is to avoid the case where we are creating additional hard
problems to solve simply because they are more interesting.

Tony