edits on various web pages about ngtrans and 6bone relationship

[fink@es.net (Bob Fink)]

Jim,

Thanks for the comments. The stuff on the IETF web page is the old stuff
and will change to look like the stuff on the 6bone/ngtrans page. I will be
mailing this to the list today or tomorrow.

As for the 'foster' versus 'assist', I think it doesn't matter, but also
don't really care. Let's wait for the mailing of the charter and see who
else comments.


Bob

At 10:23 AM 4/15/99 -0400, Jim Bound wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>>I've cleaned up various places on our web pages about the 6bone and its
>>relationship to ngtrans.
>>
>>Please take a look (especially Jim :-) and let me know what I've missed.
>
>>Note that the ngtrans charter is being changed to the one shown on the
>>6bone pages about ngtrans:
>>
>>	<http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans.html>
>
>>3. Coordinating with the IPv6 6bone testbed, operating under the IPv6
>>   Testing Address Allocation allocated in Experimental RFC 2471, to 
>>    foster the development, testing, and deployment of IPv6.
>
>I would change to:
>
>3. Coordinating with the IPv6 6bone testbed, operating under the IPv6
>   Testing Address Allocation allocated in Experimental RFC 2471, to 
>    foster the development, testing, and deployment of IPv6.
>    ^^^^^^
>    assist
>
>I think "foster" sounds like one owns the thing.  assist is really what
>is happening. 
>
>On the IETF WEB Page Charter.
>
>I am find with paragraph '1' on the web page.
>
>>2. Define and specify the mandatory and optional mechanisms that vendors
>>are to implement in
>>hosts, routers, and other components of the Internet in order for the
>>transition to be carried out.
>>Dual protocol stack, encapsulation and header translation mechanisms
>>must all be defined, as well
>>as the interaction between hosts using different combinations of these
>>mechanisms. The
>>specifications produced will be used by people implementing these IPv6
>>systems
>
>In the above we need to not send the message that any vendor MUST
>implement all of these tools.  If you implement the tool then some MUST
>will apply.  But the tool is optional.  SIT should be mandatory I agree
>and I think it is.  I think you did that in the first sentence.  More
>clarity may be provided by adding the adverbial clause below:
>
>"Define and specify the mandatory and optional mechanisms, and the
>mandatory parts of optional mechanisms, that vendors are to implement in
>hosts, routers.....etc...
>
>>3.. Articulate a concrete operational plan for transitioning from IPv4 to
>>IPv6. The result of this
>>work will be a transition plan for the Internet that network operators
>>and Internet subscribers can
>>execute.
>
>I think this is a tall order as stated and unrealistic.  How about:
>
>3.  Articulate a concrete operational plan for the initial interoperation 
>and eventual transition from IPv4 to IPv6.  The result of this work will
>be a transitional guideline for the Internet and network operators, and
>one which Internet subscribers can execute.
>
>I really like Section 4 (note the word "assist" is used here too) and
>Section 5 is obvious.
>
>thanks
>/jim