> 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. For example, > the deployment of new transition tools is out of scope of > this working group. > Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group > should be sent to relevant ADs.
The language in this email is quite clear. Interestingly, it is missing from the charter text. I see that there are two kinds of new work that could come up, and the charter should make it clear which new work falls within the charter, and should be submitted to the WG for approval, and which new work should not be submitted to the WG, but to other ADs. For instance if ULA-C fails to meet consensus and in a few months, someone comes up with a ULA-W proposal, that does not involve protocol changes and should go to the WG for approval. But if someone comes up with a new routing proposal which separates locaters and identifiers, that does involve protocol changes and should go to other ADs. --Michael Dillon -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
