Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item

["JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Pekka,

In the charter (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html), I can read as number 1:
"Solicit input from network operators and users to identify 
  operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and 
  determine solutions or workarounds to those issues.  This includes
  identifying standards work that is needed in other IETF WGs or
  areas and working with those groups/areas to begin appropriate
  work.  These issues will be documented in Informational or BCP
  RFCs, or in Internet-Drafts."

In my opinion, as already explained, proto-41 is nothing new. What is new is the operational/security issues of its usage (as described in this paragraph from the charter), and this is what the document does. In addition, the document determine solutions/workarounds for the operation, so again, falls within this paragraph in the charter.

Also, as you said, it can fall under 6 (I feel more under 5, but both are closely related). But in this case it suggest to me a new transition mechanism, and as said, proto-41 is not one.

In any case, if we are talking about 5/6, you indicate that should not be acceptable until the analysis/scenarios work is complete. I will like to know where in the charter is stated that we can't document an operational situation until the scenarios are done.

Finally, in my opinion, this is not related to the workload of the WG. Getting the document as a WG chapter will not change that. The discussions about this document have already happened in the mailing list, and I guess should continue there. So what is the difference ? The alternative is we move to a personal submission, and my feeling is that will imply more workload.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item


> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> [...]
> > Please, let me know if you feel this is acceptable or do you have any
> > objections.
> 
> I do not think it clearly falls within the charter of the WG.  The only
> clear possibility I see is charter item (6), but that would not be
> acceptable until the analysis/scenarios work is complete and a clear need
> has been identified.
> 
> In Vienna, there was some discussions about usefulness of documenting the
> existing techniques and practice, but I don't find that as our goal in the 
> charter.
> 
> We're loaded enough already.  The analysis work must be finished before 
> jumping to the mechanisms.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.