RE: Proposal : Common issues across Scenarios Design Team should be new work item

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

A few additional personal thoughts below.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Pouffary, Yanick wrote:
> The list of 'subjects' transition related issues we came up with is:
> - DNS 
> - Application 
> - Security 
> - Transition tool management 
> - Possibly Stateless/Stateful policy interactions
> - others?

Thanks.  Do you (yet) have a better picture of what in particular with 
these subjects would profit from the discussion (just trying to be 
explicit so that folks have the same idea what we'd be talking about in 
practice)?

Or would you mean generic documents like, "how to do DNS in IPv4/IPv6 
environments"? 

As I see it, there are at least a couple of reasons when additional work 
might be useful:

 1) when the work touches several scenarios and is controversial, it may 
make sense to try to gain consensus on it in just one, separate document, 
and:
   a) wait and feed the results back,
   b) proceed without the controversial issue (raises the question whether 
      the usefulness of the document is impaired)
 2) when the subject itself is at some form of consensus, but would use to 
be spelled out more, and maybe generalized a bit

 (the list is not exclusive, but these came from the top of my head.)

1) can't typically be completely done in parallel, while 2) can.

In this field, especially the item "transition tool management" may be 
problematic, as the scenarios may not be useful without it, and it may be 
a potential source of a lot of debate.

> This activity would not take away from the scenarios document it would
> help avoiding each document to have to cover these 'subjects' in full
> depth.

Ok.

> We believe this activity should be done in parallel.

Good to hear.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings