RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

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

Brian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:00 AM
> To: Fred L. Templin
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> 
> 
> "Fred L. Templin" wrote:
> ...
> > Summary - the wording in sections (1) and (7) seems to mandate
> > lowest-common-denominator solutions and ignore solutions that
> > provide a better fit.
> 
> It's hard to avoid special pleading (since the transition solution
> with my name on it is in the list), but I do think that there 
> is a strong
> argument for concentrating on LCD solutions for the first wave.

Then stated it please Brian.  Your really not responding to Fred's wording.
The market wants special solutions like ISATAP, Teredo, and DSTM and they are all being deployed by customers I know of and will not share so no one ask.  Granted its trial networks but that is how it starts.  An LCD solution is good but not for all cases. Fred's car to minivan to truck is a perfect analogy he sent out.  In my case I require a truck to haul my guns and german shepherds around :--).  

That being said I am being silent on all of this because as far as I am concerned ISATAP, Teredo, and DSTM all got screwed by the IETF process after years of support and work by the working group.  But that is OK because if we don't continue this work in the v6ops group under some valid assumption based on the charter definition I for one will go do the work in the market and not in the IETF.  I don't know how Christian and Fred feel but I know DSTM is being deployed and we can create a defacto spec if necessary and move it into the market.  I am not playing this game much longer.  Its absurd.  In fact its not just IPv6 transition.  Its in many places of the IETF.

If someone finds technical flaws or problems in design of specs thats cool and they have to debate and state and defend their position.  But to just tell a working group and authors "we just don't like it and its not needed" is hardly the IETF process I have come to spend so much energy on because it is completely unfair.  I won't put up with it and I think many vendors won't put up with it.  We have enough momentum and forums and lots of coordinated efforts in the industry now it might be time to just by-pass the IETF and just go do it and maybe that will give our process a wake up call.  Because one is needed.

But I would really like to hear you technically defend or even from market perspective why you believe the LCD is a good idea.

> 
> We might contemplate a separate IETF activity for advanced transition
> solutions.

I don't think so.  We will just do it in the market thank you.

regards,
/jim

> 
>    Brian
> 
>