edits on various web pages about ngtrans and 6bone relationship

[Jim Bound]

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