Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

["Fred L. Templin" <ftemplin@IPRG.nokia.com>]

Comments on the new proposed charter follow:


>     * To: IETF-Announce: ;
>     * Subject: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
>     * From: Steve Coya <scoya@cnri.reston.va.us>
>     * Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:05:36 -0400
>     * Cc: new-work@ietf.org
>
> A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and
> Management Area.  The IESG has not made any determination as yet.
>
> The following Description was submitted, and is provided for
> informational purposes only:
>
>
> IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> -----------------------
>
>  Current Status: Proposed Working Group
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> The global deployment of IPv6 is underway, creating an IPv4/IPv6
> Internet consisting of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and IPv4/IPv6 networks and
> nodes. This deployment must be properly handled to avoid the division
> of the Internet into separate IPv4 and IPv6 networks while ensuring
> global addressing and connectivity for all IPv4 and IPv6 nodes.
>
> The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines for the
> operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides guidance for
> network operators on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only
> networks, as well as into new network installations.
>
> The v6ops working group will:
>
> (1) Solicit input from network operators and users to identify 
>     operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet,  and
>     determine solutions or workarounds to those issues.  This includes
The term "operational" needs to be defined. The above could
be interpreted as implying that sub-optimal solutions are
satisfactory, as long as they work in some fashion. I would
like to see the term "operational" defined in such a way that
the best solution for the problem space is considered; not
just a one-size-fits-all solution that may be sub-optimal.

> (7) Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment
>     solutions documented in (5) and fully document those open
>     issues in Internet-Drafts or Informational RFCs. Work to find
>     workarounds or solutions to basic, IP-level deployment issues
>     that can be solved using widely-applicable transition mechanisms,
>     such as dual-stack, tunneling or translation.
>
>     If the satisfactory resolution of a deployment issue requires
>     the standardization of a new, widely-applicable transition
>     mechanism that does not properly fit into any other IETF WG or
>     area, the v6ops WG will standardize a transition mechanism
>     to meet that need.
I find the above wording biased, since "widely-applicable" seems to
be the only selection criteria mandated for the standardization of
new mechanisms. I would like to see the above changed to allow for
standardization of the best mechanism for a particular scenario;
not just a one-size-fits-all.

By way of analogy, four-door sedans are "widely-applicable"
vehicles. But:

  - minivans are a better choice for large families
  - pick-ups are a better choice for hauling large loads
  - 4wd's are a better choice for off-road driving
  - etc.

Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
provide a better fit.

Fred Templin
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com