Subject: (ngtrans) RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:31:15 -0400

Hi Hesham,

At 10:48 AM 9/6/02, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote:
>=> Fine, as I said I don't care where it's done, I want
>to make sure it's not dropped, and it's very easy for a WG
>to drop a spec without trying to help its authors find 
>the right place.

Before we officially disband the ngtrans WG, we will have
to make a decision about what to do with all of its WG
IDs.  There are a number of choice, but the main
options are:

        - The draft is reverted to an individual submission.

                This is the default choice for documents that
                don't find a new home.  Most of the ngtrans
                drafts will probably fall into this category.

                There is a further choice here -- whether to 
                change the name of the draft immediately, or 
                leave it as draft-ietf-ngtrans-*...  New
                revisions of these drafts would need to be
                done under the authors' names, as ngtrans 
                would no longer exist.

        - The draft is moved to v6ops or to another WG.

                In order for this to happen, the document
                would need to fit within the charter of
                another WG, and there would need to be a
                consensus within the WG to accept the 
                document as a work item
.
                I expect that we will officially accept 
                a few of the ngtrans work items (ones that 
                clearly fit into the v6ops WG charter) as 
                v6ops work items in Sunnyvale.

        - The draft is immediately expired.

                I don't think we will do this with any of the
                ngtrans work items, unless we have active 
                documents whose authors would prefer to have
                them expired, rather than reverting them to 
                an individual submission.

I realize that these aren't great choices.  The authors of ngtrans
work items have worked very hard to produce good documents that have
been accepted by the ngtrans WG and reflect WG consensus, and these
choices will represent an official step backwards for many of those 
documents.

In most cases, though, the actual status of this work won't really
have changed.  For the past several months, all ngtrans transition
mechanism work has been on-hold pending the outcome of our efforts
to define deployment scenarios and solutions, and none of this work
could be advanced unless it met most of the same criteria that are
listed in the v6ops charter.

Margaret