Re: Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-00

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:57:44PM +0200, Eva M. Castro wrote:
> I understand point 3.1 and 3.3 are very different, point 3.1 explains
> transition scenarios, or IPv6 scenarios, and point 3.3 explains
> existing enterprise scenarios. Maybe, it is more clear if the name
> of these subsections is changed:
> 
> 3.1 IPv6 transition base scenarios.
> 3.2 Scenarios Characteristics.
> 3.3 Enterprise specific scenario examples.

I guess my comments were too long for you - I suggested the same :)
 
There was some confusion between motivations, scenarios, base scenarios
which I suggested some changes for.  Jim will be back in a week or so
and I'm sure will start collating comments.   So some reinforcement in
suggestions is good.

> >Again, do you really mean IPv6-only, or IPv6-capable?
> >
> --> I understand every kind of node, without loosing  IPv4/IPv6
> interoperability. Not sure if it is required to emphasize the different
> kind of nodes in this scope.

So this is a terminology issue.  In the definitions section, IPv6 is
defined as IPv6-only.  Then in the text "IPv6" is used freely and may
mean either IPv6 in general or IPv6-only.  Maybe we should explicitly
write IPv6-only when we really mean it, to avoid any possible confusion.
 
> --> In my opinion, coexistence means interoperability between every kind
> of node and application that enterprise requires. Again, not sure if the
> different kind of nodes and applications should be distinguished in this
> scope.

Agree - the interworking is between nodes and applications; not all apps
will be capable of both protocols, some will be IPv6-only, like new p2p
apps for v6 - these may never talk to v4 except by proxies.
 
Tim