Alain, > > > > I believe the wording allows us to add work items that the WG wishes > to adopt. > > I believe this is the wrong thing to do for any wg in general and for > a ‘maintenance’ wg in particular. > The charter is a contract between the wg and the IETF represented by > the AD about what should and what should not be delivered, > this is not an open ended list of documents that the wg may feel like > working on.
I fully agree with your principle, but this is tricky for a maintenance WG. We do not know what bugs we are going to find or what spec clarifications we are going to need! Let me be clear: 6MAN is NOT a venue for people to develop new features or to make major changes in the way that current features of IPv6 work. It is strictly chartered to complete current work and then only maintenance. As the charter says: It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to the IPv6 specifications. The working group will address protocol limitations/issues discovered during deployment and operation. We also have a statement in the charter that requires IESG approval of new work items (to be changed to AD approval based on comments we received privately). This along with the quoted text above is just about the right balance in my opinion; the WG knows that it cannot do everything but we do not need to list future bugs beforehand. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
