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

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Senthil Sivakumar already replied about the same way I will but I'll try 
to respond anyway..

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 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."

The latter is pretty close to what's written in our charter.  We're not 
there to find uses for transition mechanisms.  We're here to do only what 
must be done.
 
> The V6OPS working group is a prime example of the current IETF decease:
> expanding a lot of energy to achieve no result. The symptom is very
> clear: vendors are shipping products based on internet drafts, without
> getting the benefits of IETF peer review. 

Achieving no result is probably considered a bug rather than feature if
one believes the IETF exists to provide peer review of the technologies
the vendors wish to standardize.  I don't.

> 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.

You can devise a use for every tool out there, and more besides.   Writing 
such an applicability statement is trivial; a couple of years I made the 
case myself in a paper I wrote.  But that doesn't mean those methods are 
necessary or useful.

The main point of v6ops (AFAICS) is to show the folks how to start
deploying IPv6 in the most common scenarios.  It'd both act as a guide how
to go on with it ("look, you can do X, you don't need Y"), and as a way to
identify required transition mechanisms which will be necessary.
 
> We must break the current analysis/paralysis.

It would be much easier if more people did the work, instead of complained 
about the work not having any result...

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