Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

"Bound, Jim" wrote:
> 
> also I do not consider 6to4 an LCD.  It is a custom solution for many users.  And a method that can be used by other mechanisms to work with.

That's why I was concerned about special pleading, but 6to4 wasn't intended
as a custom solution, but as a general technique to help bootstrap IPv6 adoption.

Anyway look again at what I said (or meant to say). I think it's
appropriate to limit an ops WG to simple, hopefully universal, solutions
and it's also appropriate to work on advanced solutions *in their
own WG*. I think that's a win-win. If you look at the amount of
agenda time that DSTM, ISATAP or Teredo have been getting in NGTRANS
meetings recently you can see why they would be better in a separate
group. Just doing it in the market doesn't cut it for solutions that 
require host stacks to collaborate.

   Brian


> 
> /jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bound, Jim
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 10:55 PM
> > To: Brian E Carpenter; Fred L. Templin
> > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)
> >
> >
> > 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