Re: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

I share some of Alain's concerns. I think that enterprise customers
will not look at IPv6 as a goal in itself, but as a tool for
certain business scenarios they need to support. So I think
the draft should start with a set of business scenarios,
and then maybe continue with the technology scenarios (plus
analysis of which business scenarios they support). At the end,
it would then be possible to deduce which technology scenarios
are useful.

However, I wouldn't advocate pulling back the draft. I think
we should just ask the team to go back and develop the business
scenarios (or use cases, if you prefer the term). And if necessary,
pull in more expertise for this (e.g. to cover Big Iron and
major data centers and hosting centers).

  Brian

Alain Durand wrote:
> 
> 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