Re: [v6ops] PCP server in draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

["STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>]

I quite agree that any and all discussions around changes to or further recommendations around 6092 should be held in homenet. That is exactly why I'm trying to avoid such discussions now in v6ops. I think there should be a very high bar set around changing any of the LAN-side recommendations in 6204, as we work on 6204bis. Certainly nothing should be added. But at this point, I'm opposed to any modification to those recommendations, without a very good justification, and without homenet expressing the need for the change (after having discussed and reached consensus). When those recommendations were put in 6204, they were in scope for v6ops. Since they are no longer in v6ops' scope, v6ops needs to just leave them alone. Would you like v6ops to ask homenet if they want to see any of the language in 6204 changed? If so, then I would prefer for there to be a very quick turn-around; and there needs to be strong consensus in homenet for a change. Just a couple of vocal people shouldn't be considered a consensus. If you think there might be consensus to request a change, then perhaps there should be a hum to see if the majority of homenet feel strongly enough to force a change to any of the 6204 LAN-side functionality language? I don't really know the proper procedure. Perhaps someone else should say what the proper procedure would be.
Barbara

I do think it shouldn't be controversial *now* to say that HOMENET is the venue where any further IETF recommendations about the implementation of RFC 6092 in IPv6 CE routers should originate.  If you disagree, then once again, I have to ask for an explanation of your reasoning.  I'm very interested to know.