Re: agenda items for v6ops in San Francisco

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Pekka,

> As a general note, I think we should try to discuss "transition
> architecture" in a more aggregated fashion: now it has spread all over the
> analysis documents (consider e.g. NAT/PT vs dual-stack etc.).
I agree.  Now that we are starting to get somewhat stable analysis
documents, I think it is time to start pulling this together and
looking for commonality.

Ultimately, the transitions mechanisms should reflect a consistent
architecture -- we shouldn't end up with a custom toolkit for
each environment...  But, I think that using the "divide and
conquer" approach has helped us understand the problems that our
architecture needs to address, and that it will continue to do so.

> One way trying to get some coherence here might be to try to have some
> discussion (like 10-20 mins) on some specific topics before (or after) the
> scenarios.
This sounds really good... Did you have one or more specific topics
in mind?

I'd like to see some discussion of transition security, including
your 6to4 security work.

I also think that we might consider two general discussions:

        (1) Translation-related mechanisms, perhaps based on
                Ron's transition issues draft?
        (2) Tunneling-related mechanisms -- are there common
                issues in this space?

Or, do folks think that there is a better way to organize this
discussion.

Bob, Itojun and I will discuss the time allotments for the
agenda in more detail and decide whether to request a second
slot ASAP.

Margaret