6bone Prequalification for Sub-TLA assignment

[Brian E Carpenter]

The 6bone would not be the *only* way of getting a sTLA;
but we certainly shouldn't make the 6bone's internal debate
a roadblock for sTLA assignments; this is late already!

  Brian

Bob Fink wrote:
> 
> 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