RE: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document

["MicklesCK" <MicklesCK@aol.com>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

Thanks for the comments. 

I think we saw early on that the scenario document was becoming rather
lengthy.  We have to strike a balance with it being useful to ISPs
without making it difficult to use because there is too much
information.  

The purpose of this "scenario" draft is to lay out the "problem 
set" which we are trying to solve in terms of the transition to
IPv6.  If we think less information is needed to define the problem
we can continue to remove details.  The goal is really to get to the
"analysis" document which will make recommendations of how ISPs can
transition their networks to IPv6.  

All the sections were added by the working group and we sought
authors to add content to the document.  As of the interim
V6OPS meeting three additional sections were added by the
WG but only two authors came forward to author two of the 
sections.  We do not have an author for the datacenter
section.  I propose we drop the additional datacenter 
section since, as I pointed out at the interim meeting, there
would be overlap with the Enterprise draft.  In any event, the
WG thought that overlap was OK and wanted to have the
additional section added to the ISP draft as well.

If the WG wants to further subdivide the ISP draft then that 
is our prerogative, but hopefully some willing volunteers will 
step forward as well.

Cleve...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:35 AM
> To: Margaret Wasserman; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: agenda items for SF ? ISPs document
> 
> 
> Hi Margaret, Itojun,
> 
> I'm not sure if we can work setting up the agenda of the next 
> v6ops meeting in SF, while some of the design teams aren't
> progressing, and the editor is just putting together some of the 
> comments received (after several months some times !), and not
> having any kind of discussion ...
> 
> I really think we need some quick action on this. I'm not even 
> sure this will be in time for the next IETF, but we can (should) try
> ...
> 
> Now, trying to be constructive, I will propose that this document 
> is split into several documents, with more focus, and the design
> team is re-designed in some way.
> 
> For example, why not doing something like:
> - Core networks
> - Access networks
> - IXs
> - Management (it could be included in each of the documents)
> 
> May be we want to be even more focused, considering different 
> types of access networks in different documents. Obviously separating
> this means that probably we are going to repeat some text from 
> one document to others, but it makes also the life easier for those
> ISPs that only deploy one technology, as they only need to read 
> one document that only considers its own scenario.
> 
> In any case, I really hope that you can take soon a decision 
> about how to make this work progressing, and solving the issue of the
> actual editor ignoring how IETF works (in my point of view). I'm 
> sorry to be so direct, but if we continue this trend we can have
> another "multi6" situation ;-)
> 
> Hope it helps !
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> *********************************
> Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
> 12-14 May 2003 - Pre-register at:
> http://www.ipv6-es.com
> Interested in participating or sponsoring ?
> Contact us at ipv6@consulintel.es
> 
> 
> 
>