6bone Prequalification for Sub-TLA assignment

[Jim Bound]

>I think Bob Fink wrote most, if not all, of those pages, so I'll wait for what
>he has to say about how to interpret them.

I agree.

>I don't think that "being an IETF activity" means that the IETF necessarily
>micromanages or even sets policy for something; as I understand it, it just
>means that the IETF endorses something and believes that it serves an IETF
>function.  But I've never read an official definition of "IETF activity".

This is my concern.  What does it mean?

>I didn't mean to suggest that the IETF would "bless or veto" particular
>6bone decisions, just that there does exist an association between them.

I agree there is an association.

What I am doing of late is to clearly differentiate IETF space from
vendor and others space to get Ipv6 deployed.  The decision on when to
ship real IPv6 products, market them, move them, and proactively push
them in the market is not an IETF effort but an industry and market
effort.  

Because "transition" kind of overlaps btw the IETF and the act stated
above is why this has come up at all.

If the market is ready before we can complete what we are working very
hard on for transition in the IETF (and I include myself in that hard
work in the IETF) as an industry and as vendors we have a delimma. I
think this has already happened.  We stand at a crossroad as vendors (at
least some of us) with ready customers who want IPv6 for several reasons
but will need some transition mechanisms potentially in 1999.

That is why I think the "differentiation" is needed for IPv6 deployment
and why the IPv6 Deployment/Users List and IPv6 Forum is moving forward now 
in part.  To assist users with this delimma and provide a forum to
influence the market and vendors to hasten what is happening here with
IPv6.

/jim