RE: Note on Scenarios for IPv6

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

Hi Margaret,

I won't inline comment (not because I am lazy) because I am in tune with
your mail and agree.  I am fully on board with the v6ops charter to see
if it works.  I stated my input on that but can move on if that is what
the team wants to do, except for very rare cases (e.g. Stateful being a
SHOULD in node reqs and will fight the to the IESG most likely).

What I was referencing (not picking on Pekka) was Pekka's mail to our
Ent draft and short discussion Pekka had with Bob Fink regarding
defining the IPv4 Enterprise in scenarios not IPv6.  Granted it was a
short mail exchange, and I could be reading to much into it.  But, I
have seen this type of mail in our culture cause raging debate over the
assumptions and goals, and we end up back at the starting gate. So given
many years here I am a bit nervous on the amount of energy I put into
it. 

But I thought we were ok till today too.  Just checking.  I also believe
doing the scearios will make steps move very quickly for TTM for our
specs and output from this WG.  At least in theory.

Thanks
/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@windriver.com] 
>Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 8:48 PM
>To: Bound, Jim
>Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>