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

[Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com>]

 I believe this mailing list is surfacing some really good information 
and has the potential to fill in a lot of blanks for network operators.  
Can-can has emphatically described some of the problems an operator 
faces and made a good case for the need for guidance.  I support 
continuing this work and as Fred and others have pointed out, it should 
certainly build upon the already large body of RFCs, active and expired 
drafts in v6ops, 6man, softwires and behave.  An annotated bibliography 
(of all the transition/coexistence docs) would help and if no one has 
one I might take a crack at that - I had done that before the behave 
interim meeting on transition scenarios, but have not kept it up to date.

It is good to have a focused discussion to pull together problem 
statements, use cases and prior work that may address them.  I don't 
have a strong opinion on creating a new WG, holding a BoF at IETF79 or 
doing the work under an existing charter such as v6ops.  I will try to 
contribute and review the work regardless of where it is done.  I hope 
we don't waste time debating logistics and organizational matters - the 
time could be better spent on the real problem and solutions.

Ed J
SRI International