[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: spending time on analysis [Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item]
At 11:44 AM 11/15/2003 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> > Then, let's have ISATAP as a WG item; it's been around for three
> > years and there is nothing premature about that. (Better yet would
> > be to just go ahead and publish it NOW.)
>
> We don't yet know whether we need ISATAP.
Correction. We very well know we do. In fact, we know it so much that
there is actual deployment at many sites, and interoperable
implementations by several vendors. You can only write that "we don't
know" if you define knowledge in the very narrow sense of "we do not
have a requirement document that explains why we absolutely cannot do
without it."
This is true for almost all of the proposed transition mechanisms. There are
implementations and deployments.
The example of ISATAP is quite telling. It would be very easy to write a
simple 2 paragraph document explaining how ISATAP can be used to provide
IPv6 connectivity in an enterprise network as an overlay over the
existing IPv4 infrastructure. We may not unanimously approve that this
is needed, but we should never require unanimity in such cases. If there
is a substantial constituency that approves the requirement, the IETF
tradition is to acknowledge that the requirement exists.
The WG is taking second and third looks on the transition mechanisms
proposed and as I see there is a process of elimination going on.. By the
time this WG is done, there would not be any more transition mechanisms
and we would have to start from scratch..
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 seeking even rough consensus is a bad idea. It would lead to anyone
developing anything that they want with the blessings of IETF and that is bad
for the IETF and the industry. It does not have to be a unanimous decision but
at least a rough consensus should be sought.
Senthil
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.
We must break the current analysis/paralysis.
-- Christian Huitema