Re: [v4tov6transition] Some opinions about establish a new WG

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>]

On 8/27/10 11:00 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
> 
> Le 27 août 2010 à 23:52, Randy Bush a écrit :
> 
>>> If v6ops isn't the place to do this work, and write consensus
>>> answers to ALL questions that people involved in IPv6 deployments
>>> may ask
>> 
>> then why the heck would v6ops exist?
> 
> Whether v6ops is the place not only for OAM questions, but ALSO for
> customer and product-vendor considerations, is IMHO still unclear. 
> Making official where the work on a comprehensive and easily readable
> FAQ-document may start would be welcome.

I'll just leave items 1 and 4 from the v6ops charter here:

1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
operational issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. These issues
will be documented in Informational or BCP RFCs, or in
Internet-Drafts.

This work should primarily be conducted by those areas and WGs
which are responsible and best fit to analyze these problems, but
v6ops may also cooperate in focusing such work.

4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze
solutions
for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, such as
ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small
Office), and Cellular Networks.

Regarding a comprehensive FAQ

I'm not an encyclopedist

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die)

but I have some experience with shepherding large documents through the
ietf, and I will say that large interdependant document series can be
challenging to get through the process in a timely fashion, get proper
review on and or build consenus for. and thus I tend to favor dsicrete
documents.

Randy and Lucy built a lovely wiki for the purpose of generating a faq
something like 2 years ago, which had more than few contributors from
this community. there are limits as to the utility of a faq without
regular updates.

> RD
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> randy
> 
> 
> 
>