Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6

[Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>]

Hi Jim,

> Picking on our Ent work as example.  We have had pretty much the same 
> intro and scope we believed was important since the v6ops interim meeting 
> and in Yokohamma.  Today we now learn there is a scope issue.  Yokohamma 
> was 9 months or so ago.  We need to fix this folks.  It is not all the 
> teams fault or the working group.  Its some kind of process we are stuck 
> in.  We need to break it.
Why do you believe that there is a scope issue for this
document?  I have just read it, again, and I do not believe
that there is anything wrong with the scope of this document.

Obviously, there are still many incomplete sections that
need to be completed, and there is some further editing
needed, but I believe that the scope and structure are
fine.

The important thing is that we write a set of documents
that help us to understand how enterprise networks will move
to IPv6, where/when/how/if they will need to run both IPv4
and IPv6, and what coexistence mechanisms will be needed
to make this work.

We broke the task into two pieces, scenarios and analysis,
because we wanted to understand the problem space before
we started working on the applicability of each coexistence
mechanism to the problem space.  I think that this document
does a good job of defining the problem space for our later
analysis work.

Margaret