Re: Note on Scenarios for IPv6

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

I made the comment a few weeks ago that the enterprise document should
include some customer-scenario use cases, to validate the technical
scenarios as being relevant - and Jim acknowledged this as a useful
thing to add. But I don't think that means there is a basic scope problem
with the document.

   Brian

"Bound, Jim" wrote:
> 
> 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