6bone Prequalification for Sub-TLA assignment

[Bob Fink]

Rob,

At 10:11 AM 4/5/99 -0400, Robert Rockell wrote:
>->This will be open for discussion until 19 April '99, at which time the IAB,
>->RIRs and IPv6 co-chairs will decide whether to move forward on an agreement
>->about this or not, based on comments received. 
>
>If the 6bone Hardening effort is not fully developed yet, maybe we can hold
>off on the date to see if the efforts of this group prove to be fuitful, or
>at least agreed upon, by all interested parties? However, this is not meant
>to say that we should hold up the delegation of TLA's till after Oslo,
>simply due to scheduling. 
>
>I am afraid to move forward with the assumption that the hardening effort
>will be written in stone, and used as an advisory to the registries, if it
>has the chance of not being widely accepted withing the working groups, and
>particualarly the 6bone. 

Although I believe we will eventually agree to some (a lot) of 6bone
hardening, I don't think this prequalification method hinges on it, and we
do have a current set of rules for becoming a pTLA. If the 6bone consensus
is that a network is a qualified pTLA, they would probably get a fitness
report to the affirmative. When the 6bone's pTLA rules eventually get
tougher (and I hope they will), it will just be a little tougher to get a
fitness report.

I don't really want us to delay on this prequalification any longer than it
takes to get an agreement in place. We do need to have Sub-TLAs assigned.


Thanks,

Bob