Re: Oops! Accepting Enterprise Scenarios as WG Item

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

Jim, I think you're misinterpreting my use of the b-word. I'm not
(of course) talking about business models. I'm talking about scenarios.
For example:

  A bank running a massive ATM network with some number of gazillions
  of transactions per second against central databases.

  An engineering company running distributed design systems
  across 20 different sites around the world.

  A pharmaceutical company running both compute-intensive and ERP
  applications.

etc. Each one fleshed out with how they do things today, and what
they want to achieve by adding IPv6.

   Brian

"Bound, Jim" wrote:
> 
> Brian,
> 
> > 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.
> 
> We discussed this on the team.  I agree with business justification.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> We discussed this and this is not an IETF mission or purpose.  The
> business scenarios are not common and will vary.  If we pick X business
> scenarios and leave out Y then the Y types will not be happy.  This is
> not a goal of any scenario document unmanaged, ISP, or 3gpp.  So I would
> suggest that this is not on any of the design teams plates. If your
> correct and I do not believe you are to add this then none of the
> current scenarios should be moved to the IESG.
> 
> >
> > 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).
> 
> We have that expertise for "operations" and will not focus on data
> center or big iron.  Reason is that one persons belief of data center or
> big iron is not the same as anothers. In the follow on draft analysis of
> the enterprise which will be technical will have assumptions that a
> "data center" could use.
> 
> That being said I would suggest the IPv6 Forum, Asian IPv6 Task Force,
> North American IPv6 Task Force have the business scenarios and cases
> done.  It is also those forum charter not the IETF.
> 
> Also would suggest if we want to focus on the data center specifically
> we should build a separate draft and set of work to discuss first what
> it means and then execute on those assumptions it should not be part of
> the enterprise work.
> 
> This team and work should be the dumping ground for all the things we
> have to do that are not covered in the other specs.  Or else we will be
> here for 5 years working on this and this team is not going to do that.
> Like DNS is the dumping ground for anything we cannot figure out in our
> community to store data I would suggest and that is wrong too.
> 
> Regards,
> /jim
> >
> >   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-sc
> enario
> > > s-
> > > 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