Jari, I would agree with the balance you suggest. It is different from what was stated by the chair.
- Alain. On 8/21/07 12:42 AM, "Jari Arkko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 maintenance¹ 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
