IPv6 Maintenance
charter-ietf-6man-04

I have no objection to the new charter, including no objection to the intent of the new second paragraph:

   The 6MAN WG will review all proposed extensions to IPv6 developed in other
   working groups to ensure that they are consistent with the IPv6 architecture and
   specifications.

That said, that paragraph makes me uncomfortable on behalf of the chairs: How does the WG *find* "all proposed extensions to IPv6"?  Who is responsible for looking at what all the other working groups are doing, and identifying everything that 6MAN needs to review?  Isn't this an open-ended requirement that the chairs can't hope to meet?  (I realize that it's likely that 6MAN participants will find most of them "organically", by virtue of their normal participation in other WGs; what I worry about is its being put in terms of a mandate, a formal task for the WG.)

As I say, I think the intent is a fine one, and I wouldn't want to pull that paragraph back out, or anything like that.  I chatted with Brian for a bit, and neither of us can think of a different way to phrase this so that it's not akin to cleaning the Augean stables.

I'll continue thinking on it for now; if anyone else has any ideas, please speak up.

Same concern/comment as Barry

   The 6MAN WG will review all proposed extensions to IPv6 developed in other
   working groups to ensure that they are consistent with the IPv6 architecture and
   specifications. 

So basically, for this entry, you want 6MAN to work as directorate?
We have directorates (pm-dir, yang-doctors, aaa-doctors, etc...) that receive a generated weekly email with all the current drafts that reference a list of RFC and/or contain specific keyword(s) (ex: performance metric). This is the input for the review process.
Maybe a directorate is more appropriate for this task?

No strong opinion at this point in time

I agree that this is ready to go for external review.

0) I like the last work item a lot!  Let me know if I can help in anyway.

1) How does this:

  It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions
  to the IPv6 specifications.

jive with the list of things to do especially this one:

  Extensions/changes to core IPv6 protocols such as IPv6
  Neighbor Discovery

Maybe the sentence in the first paragraph should say:

  It is not chartered to make gratuitous changes or additions
  to the core IPv6 specifications.

2) I'm just curious about the correlation of the drafts to some of the work items.  Some seem pretty concrete, like these:

- "U/G" bits in Interface Identifiers is draft-ietf-6man-ug-03?

- Fragmentation - there's a whole bunch of individual drafts.  Will there be a tradeoff draft and then a solution draft (not that I care whether there are two or one I'm just curious).

- Approaches for IPv6 Extension Headers are draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-03 + draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain?

but the next two seem a little open ended, but maybe I've gotten this wrong - are there drafts that directly correlate to these work items or will there be many drafts:

 - Extensions/changes to core IPv6 protocols such as IPv6 Neighbor Discovery 
 - New IPv6 over <FOO> approaches if appropriate for 6MAN

Would adding a limit on the number of these kind of specs make sense?  "The WG will only adopt 2 New IPv6 over <FOO> approaches at a time to ensure they are completed before starting a new one."  The idea is too keep 'em focused and not just have things sprout up to sprout up.

And should there be a list of the RFCs that form the core IPv6 protocols or is that too much of a red herring?

3) On the last paragraph should it be:

  All new work items not listed above require a recharter before they will
  be adopted by the working group.

4) Don't know how people feel about this but I like what IPSECME does - they timeout if they're not getting stuff done:

  This charter will expire in (24 months from approval).
  If the charter is not updated before that time, the WG will be
  closed and any remaining documents revert back to individual
  Internet-Drafts.

5) Also, should update the dates in the milestones before it goes to external review I got flamed on a recent re-charter.

I agree with the points made by Adrian and Pete