RE: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Alain,

We can respond as we did in Atlanta but with new data point.  We are
building the architecture for what you ask with the scenarios.  THe
chairs, the area directors, and many in the working group, asked us to
not go into the weeds as you suggest below of solving the problems or
identifying details.  It is more I the spirit of Pekka's transition
architecture of late, unmanaged, and 3gpp scenarios that also did not do
this.  It seems to me the working group supports those initial
strategies too. I certainly do with my ACK to Margaret to move to IESG
call.  We will do a follow on doc I believe Margaret is calling the
analysis doc and even start it with overlap as umanaged did to reach
time-to-market reqs of the working group in this area.

What I suggest is we can look at our list for this phase and see if we
missed a category but I don't think so but rather as we fill out the
sections we can consider your list from an architectural (pekkas draft)
use for scenarios.

Yanick has assigned each member of the team a section I don't think we
will be done with next steps by SanFrancisco but clearly close after.

I would suggest unless we hear from others your input is important but
will not change our direction and I urge the working group to support
this as working group item because we have much time invested here and
asking us to invest more with out making this a working group item will
be tough for us.

Thanks
/jim

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alain Durand [mailto:Alain.Durand@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 7:48 PM
> To: Margaret Wasserman
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>