Re: [v6ops] Charter discussion

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

> On Jul 30, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Owen DeLong <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> second paragraph of “4.”
> …on possible ways how to deploy…
> 
> Suggest delete how leaving … on possible ways to deploy …
> 
> Next (third) paragraph: …and the primary intent is not capture the…
> Suggest add the word “to” … and the primary intent is not to capture the…
> 
> Otherwise, looks good to me.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 13:44 , Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> As we discussed last week in the f2f meeting, here is a proposed new charter for v6ops. Comments please, with proposed text (e.g., old text and new text) for any changes you'd like.
>> 
>> <v6ops-proposed-charter-v4.txt><Diff: v6ops-charter.txt - v6ops-proposed-charter-v4.txt.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops


I wonder whether we are on the same page. If you're talking about the two paragraphs

> These documents should serve as useful guides to network operators
> and users on possible ways how to deploy IPv6 within their existing
> IPv4 networks, as well as in new network installations.
> 
> These documents should not be normative guides for IPv6 deployment,
> and the primary intent is not capture the needs for new solutions,
> but rather describe which approaches work and which do not.

those are in the current charter, and not in the proposed one.