Re: spending time on analysis [Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item]

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

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 11:44:20AM -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
> I would propose one simple way to meet the "describe your scenario"
> requirement: ask anyone who proposes a transition technology to include
> in the draft a two paragraph description of what scenario the proposal
> is supposed to facilitate. The WG should then verify that there is some
> demand for the scenario, but should not require unanimity or even "rough
> consensus": just because someone believes I don't need something does
> not change my need for it. The role of the working group should be peer
> review: make sure that the proposal is well engineered and meets it
> stated requirement without causing harm.

I agree with Christian's general sentiments.

The 18 month navel-inspecting period has served no purpose other than to 
ensure that ISATAP, DSTM and Teredo have been commercially implemented and 
deployed, but without the IETF standardisation process behind them to help 
ensure interoperability between those implementations or indeed with other 
transition tools.

This isn't a criticism of the design teams.  Indeed the deployment scenarios
are so broad (esp. for enterprise) that it is no surprise that only the
most narrow of scenarios (3GPP) has been (nearly) completed.   

I don't see any reason why ISATAP, DSTM and Teredo could not be adopted
as WG items and standardised using all the expertise of the V6 Ops WG minds, 
rather than being forced into implementation and deployment outside of the 
IETF, without WG input.

Christian's solution seems sound.  I would venture that we could consider
accepting DSTM, ISATAP and Teredo as WG items (if the WG members agree)
independently of the analysis, and then once finalised only put them to 
Proposed Standard once the need is agreed by analysis or by the WG.   At 
least that way the mechanisms would be on the WG table, in the open for all 
to see and work on. 

I think it is the WG that should agree adoption of a mechanism.   The problem 
has been that for 18 months the IESG has denied the WG that choice.

Tim