Re: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item

[Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>]

Margaret,

First, I would like to say that I appreciate the effort of the
design team to address such a difficult issue.

However, that said, I'm not very comfortable with this document.
On one hand, it is badly needed and already very late,
on the other hand, I'm not sure it is taking the right direction.

I already have commented several times that this design team
is way too 'transition tool' centric in its approach, somehow making  
the hidden
assumption that solving the 'enterprise' case in the (yet to come)   
analysis/solution
document will consist only of picking the 'right' transition tool  
developed by NGtrans.

What I would like to see are things like the following
instantiated for a set of 'typical' enterprise environment:

- how does the internal networks looks like?
- how is the networks are managed?
  (who is responsible, what is outsourced, is IT competent/reliable or  
not ...)
- what are the procedure/tools in place to manage the network?
  (not only SNMP, but for example tools to create DNS zone files)
- is the public internet used (via VPN...)?
- what are the connections to the Internet?
- Is the v4 address space private or public?
- Is the v4 address space 'portable'? (hint: do they need portable v6  
address space)
- How much v4 address space is available?
- Are they multi-homed?
- how is security enforced?
- how does the datacenter looks like if there is one?
- what kind of applications are used in the  
Internet/intranet/extranets/...)
  (is it in-house code? is the source code available? is an Ipv6  
version of the
 code available to buy?....)
- how naming service/directory service is performed (two face DNS?)
-...



There is a little of that buried in section 4, variable description,
but I think this document should really instantiate those variables
and more (the ones I just described above for example, certainly much  
more)
in a set of several 'typical' enterprise environments instead of  
focusing
on cases describing how enterprises are thinking of deploying v6 at the  
IP level
(section 5, which is basically which networks to connect) or abstract  
cases of transition mechanisms
(section 6, point of transition methods) which belongs not in this  
document
but in the solution document.

With this in mind, I would not recommend the wg adopting this document.

	- Alain.




On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 08:46  AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I made a mistake last week and approved the publication
> of the enterprise scenarios document as a WG work item
> without actually checking with the WG first...  Sorry.
>
> So, let's do this the right way...
>
> The enterprise scenarios/analysis team believes that
> the current version of their scenarios document is ready
> for consideration as a v6ops WG item.  The document can
> be found at:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-entnet-scenarios- 
> 00.txt
>
> This work is clearly within the charter of v6ops.
>
> Could members of the WG please comment on whether you
> believe that this document should be accepted as a WG
> item?  In other words, does it take the right technical
> direction, and would it serve as a useful basis for our
> work?  Is it sufficiently complete that it is ready for
> WG review and refinement?
>
> If there is sufficient support to accept this document,
> it will remain a WG work item.  If not, we will move it
> back to individual submission status.
>
> Sorry for my mistake and any confusion it may cause.
>
> Margaret