Re: Apology

Might start with looking at the working group charter:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/6man/about/

Bob

> On Feb 26, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote:
> 
> On 26/02/2019 17:00, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 26/2/19 12:35, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
>>> Dear @all,
>>> 
>>> On 25/02/2019 09:37, Ole Troan wrote:> 6man is a long lived working
>>> group, tasked with maintaining the IPv6
>>>> specifications. That’s different from the typical IETF working group.
>>>> Perhaps it is time to have a wider debate about how the working group
>>>> should function and what it’s role should be.
>>> 
>>> This is an important discussion to have. Can we define first what
>>> exactly "maintaining the IPv6 specifications" mean?
>> Normally maintenance has to do with addressing problems/flaws found in
>> the specs and/or operationally. -- which is essentially what we are
>> doing here.
>> As a datapoint, e.g., tcpm, for one of the most widely-deployed
>> protocols (almost 40 years old) there has been a fair share of work,
>> ranging from generation and processing of sequence numbers and ack
>> numbers (e.g. RFC6528 and RFC5961), definitions of new options,
>> deprecation of features (e.g. URG indications), changing the initial
>> window, changing RTO values, etc.
>> Not sure what the debate wuld be about with respect to what
>> "maintenance" is about.
> 
> Well, my response was aimed at Ole's "Perhaps it is time to have a wider debate about how the working group should function and what it’s role should be."
> 
> Maybe the first thing to figure out is what version of meaning of "maintenance" we would like to use and that could set a nice path forward for a discussion that Ole proposed.
> 
> Cheers, Jan
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------