Tim,
> I agree that ULA-C "needs a home" but disagree the IPv6 Maintenance WG is it, > given: > > * the first paragraph of the proposed charter: > > "The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core > IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of new > solutions or changes to the specifications.." > > && at least one of the group chairs doesn't consider it to be a core protocol, > > && at least one of the group chairs doesn't see group consensus on ULA-C, > > && there are other group members who don't see group consensus on ULA-C, > > && we haven't heard from any group members who do see group consensus on > ULA-C, > > && "Complete work" is meant to be predicated upon group consensus > > I'd say it should be removed from the charter. > What we really want to achieve is to have a forum where we can talk about maintenance issues of the IPv6 protocol set, but we also need to carry over the work that remains from IPv6 WG. I am not creating another working group to just talk about ULA, so we have a practical question of where we will finish the work. (And by "finish" I might mean that we decide to abandon the work at the end -- but NOT before a discussion.) Please be assured that we will not move the ULA work forward if the current non-consensus situation does not change. Brian Carpenter wrote: > 6man, and tweak the charter to cover address architecture maintenance, This would be my take too. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
