Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:26:24 -0700
From: Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| After some thought the chairs and ADs think it would be best to also change
| the working group acronym from IPng to IPv6.
Why? This seems all gloss, no substance, and a bunch of meaningless
work and disruption for no benefit.
The only real advantage to doing this would be if somewhere on the
horizon was a WG for an even newer generation of IP.
| Our conclusion is that changing the working group acronym from IPng to IPv6
| will cause some short term annoyances, overall it will be simpler to have
| the working group name and acronym match.
The working group name, as I understand it, is currently "IPNG". That's
what the current charter calls it (with ipngwg as its acronym). You'll only
make them match if you're changing the working group name as well (which it
appears you are).
If the "next" in the label is the problem, given that we want to give
the impression that we're there already, just redefine that to "new"
which is certainly still true. Before ipng (ipv6) ceases being new
this WG ought to be extinct.
The only hint of why is in the proposed new charter itself ...
The working group is being renamed the IP Version 6 Working Group (IPv6)
because it is a better description of the working group's focus.
which I don't follow at all, IPng and IPv6 are the same thing (for the
past 7 years, and the next 7 I hope). Whatever one means, so does the
other - the focus is identical.
| p.s. We will also see about making both ipng and ipv6 work for the mailing
| list.
There's no need to do that even if the name change occurs - the mailing
list could retain its old identity (poisson still uses "poised" as its
list name, which was the WG name 2 generations of WGs ago, and dnsext
uses namedroppers which was never a WG name, but has been the DNS mailing
list though a whole stck of WGs).
I have no problems with anything of substance in the charter, though I
do find the juxtaposition of the following two paragraphs amusing, to
say the least...
New work items not listed above require the approval of the working
group and Internet Area directors before they will be taken on by the
working group.
The working group would welcome contributions on the following topics
(this is not an exhaustive list):
Which is to say, we can't do anything not listed above, but we want to
do all of the following (none of which was listed above). Weird...
kre
ps: do you really expect June 2001 milestones to be met?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
