[v6ops] Re: WG Charter Proposal

[[e-mail]]

Hi Jen, all,

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jen Linkova <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mardi 30 septembre 2025 02:56
> À : Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>
> Cc : IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> <[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] WG Charter Proposal
> 
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Thank you, the charter looks much better, almost perfect.
> I have two minor comments though (sorry!! ;)
> 
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 3:31 AM Ron Bonica
> <rbonica=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >    *  Publish a document that explains why  dual-stack hosts
> >       communicate using IPv4 where they should prefer IPv6
> 
> Maybe
> "Investigate and document use cases where dual-stack hosts prefer
> IPv4 or fail to utilize available IPv6 transport"?
> 

[Med] This is indeed better and reflect what I understood from Tim (when he first suggested this item). I made a minor edit, though: s/transport/connectivity

> >    *  Maintain specifications of widely deployed transition
> mechanisms
> >       (including updating those published as Informational to
> Standards
> >       Track and Proposed Standard to Internet Standard)
> [skip]
> 
> >    Occasionally, deployment issues will require protocol
> enhancements.
> >    Protocol enhancements are the responsibility of the groups
> that
> >    developed the protocols.  However, the v6ops Working Group
> may
> >    provide input to those groups and cooperate with them in
> reviewing
> >    solutions to IPv6 deployment problems.
> 
> Don't we have conflict between those two paragraphs? IMHO we need
> smth more solid justifying v6ops publishing standard documents.
> Maybe this last paragraph could say:
> "Additionally, the v6ops WG may develop enhancement for IPv6
> transition protocols, developed by concluded WGs"? Or smth in that
> direction? Med, what do you think?
> 
> (As you might have guessed already, I want to make sure that
> RFC7915 improvements (one of them already being a v6ops doc) are
> OK to be developed here.

[Med] 7915 falls under the bullet to maintain work developed in v6ops, but I agree with you that we need to strengthen the provision for PS work. Your suggested sentence is great. Thanks.

> 
> --
> Cheers, Jen Linkova
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.