Re: On NGTRANS, transition mechanisms and consortia

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

-- mardi, novembre 19, 2002 18:10:47 -0500 Harald Tveit Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote/a écrit:

> Jim,
> 
> this is in reply to your note of November 14, entitled "IPv6 Transition
> Mechanisms and Industry Transition Consortia".

<mb> part of mail cut</mb>
> 
> The IETF never required the work on mechanisms to stop; since we're an
> organization of volunteers, we weren't even taking resources away from
> the documents - even the ngtrans mailing list remained open. But a
> logical inference was that the IESG would be unlikely to promote new
> documents to the standards track until the scenarios and resulting
> requirements were defined in v6ops.
> 
> There are several ways around this if you want things published:
> - Publish through other mechanisms than the RFC process
> - Publish as Experimental RFC

I proposed this as a way to revolve/help resolve the transition mechanisms
drop:
- many mechanisms are documented, are implemented and used (to various
levels)
- I agree with the desire to make a short list.
- but it seems to me to soon to conclude that all mechanisms that will not
be in the short list are bad or broken or not useful.
- all this is also based on the assumption that we will agree on the
scenarios and requirements, which is not always the case happening in the
ietf.

on the other hand, there are many implementations, and those who are
developing are using expired drafts. Many mechanisms might be of not short
term use, or more specific use, or might be perceived as not the right
mechanism from some people.

I would propose that we have a track to publish many of those mechanisms as
experimental RFC. After some period of time (might be years), we could
revisit to put them back on the standard track. That way, we will have a
stable document where implementors, users, the community could use, while
keeping the goal of a short list for standard track.


Marc.

<mb> part of mail cut</mb>

> 
> 
> With hope for a better understanding in the future,
> 
>                Harald
> 
> 
>