Re: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-v6ops-03-00: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Fred,

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Spencer Dawkins <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This looks like a fine revised charter. I had slight uneasiness about
> > adding
> >
> > "2.  Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
> > operational interaction issues with the IPv4 Internet, and determine
> > solutions or workarounds to those issues."
> >
> > because I wondered if this will make v6ops more attractive for NAT
> > proposals, but if that's the right thing to do, please do the right
> > thing.
>
> In fairness, there is an update to RFC 6145, incorporating a erratum, RFC
> 6791, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation, and
> draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam, happening on the v6ops list right now. The
> obvious other working groups are either defunct or about to be. Joel told
> us that if v6ops could agree on the update (which is pretty close), he
> would take it as AD-sponsored. So, yes, there is a question of translation,
> and it is being driven by operational considerations.
>
> The question that the sunset4 chairs had with Lee and I was how this fit
> with their charter, which is essentially about IPv4 shutdown. The current
> charter wording was worked out with them.


Thank you for the helpful background. I'm entirely comfortable with the
proposed charter revision.

Spencer