RE: WG Last Call: a batch of draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-*01 documents

["Philip J. Nesser II" <phil@Nesser.COM>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear V6OPS Group,

I would just like to take this opportunity to make a few statements
on the survey documents.

First, I would like to apologize that the rest of my life came
crashing down on my head earlier this year and I pretty much had to
drop out of any real IETF activity.  I would also like to publicly
thank the WG chairs (especially Pekka) for pushing these documents
without my active help over the last 6 months or so.  Finally, my
thanks to Andreas Bergstrom for taking over the editing of the docs
and helping to move them to their eventual publication.

Second, I would like to provide a bit of background on these
documents.  Most of this work was done in a vacuum by my self and
although I like to think of myself as a generalist there are way too
many standards and documents for me to keep track of them all.  I
can't tell you how much I appreciate all of the comments that I have
seen coming over a variety of lists in the last month or so (as well
as all of the previous ones over the last couple of years).

Those looking at the drafts now might wonder at some points that seem
a little strange, so here is an explanation of some of them.

1.  The weird tags at the end of many RFC names (i.e. MIB-Ethernet). 
I originally took the RFC titles from the RFC Editor web site and
they were all included there, so I left them in.  I have no feelings
one way or another if they are left in or removed.

2.  The stopping point RFC 3274 (or whatever it was).  That was the
last published RFC at the time the work commenced.  There was a
general discussion that the IESG should not let any documents pass
that had IPv4 dependencies after that (or at least requires a big
note pointing it out).  The fact that there are so many drafts and
RFCS after 3274 that fix problems with earlier RFCS is somewhat of a
testament that either the problem was already identified and known or
that someone read one of the drafts and initiated work to fix the
issue.  Either way this is a success in making IPv6 some small steps
closer to its ultimate realization.  

I would make a few cautions here.  The comments pointing to published
RFCS that fix problems should definitely be included, but be careful
of adding references to drafts since they can change/die/be replaced
etc... and cause more confusion.  (It might also cause the RFC Editor
to hold the documents but since I am don't remember the exact rules
so someone who knows for sure should be consulted (or speak up)).

Although this process has been long and I am anxious to see the final
publication of these documents, I would like to suggest that the
V6OPS group keep this process alive in the following way.  Once these
are finally published there will be a list of outstanding
specifications.  Once a year or any cycle that is agreed upon, a new
informational RFC should come out that lists the problems that have
been fixed, and the remaining outstanding items.  This should not be
a large effort since there should be no real analysis required, just
a bookkeeping effort.


Phil 

P.S.  I would also like to publicly thank all of the kind words that
various people written about the work.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBP1a5/g6aViIxlRuuEQKdqQCgoTfEXgSCyHx5hoTZm+njIMlKdVcAn2Q2
CVEEGYhibMxGo3EYbi0Htb7m
=J+AQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----