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

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

Note to WG and the counter for mail messages.  I am going to be
responding to lots of mail as Editor for Enterprise Scenarios.  I will
do my best to keep my opinions and diatribe out of this mail but need to
acknowledge the responses.  I will be as Terminator 1 and mission is to
get edits right and verify corrections or ask for clarification.  So I
may appear on the counter next week or the next few.  But as Editor.
Other inputs I try to keep to no more than 10 mails a week.  /jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Chown [mailto:tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 9:05 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-00
> 
> 
> 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.

I am not back really, I just love you people so much I had to jump back
to cyberspace :--).  I will try to fix this confusion as Editor ok.  But
need to think and send short message to the WG to state a suggestion of
text for direction for the spec.  See if all can support it ok.  Thanks.

> 
> > >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.

Same response as above.

>  
> > --> 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

Thanks
/jim

> 
>