RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I believe Fred has made a valid point on input to the charter.  The one-size-fits-all is  not a good way to view a tool.  This is a good catch in the wording of the charter.

thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred L. Templin [mailto:ftemplin@IPRG.nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:49 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>