Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 24 May 2004, Jonne Soininen wrote:
> these are scenarios and the scenarios should describe the possible
> scenarios that do make technically sense and hence, are possible to
> be deployed. I do not see why not all of the scenarios would not
> make sense.

Enumerating the possibilities is of course fine.

I was mainly objecting to Tim's wording:

  If section 4 were removed a requirement subsection would be needed in
  section 5 to state that legacy interworking **is required** for four
  main modes:

(emphasis mine)

s/is required/needs to be considered/ (for example) and it would be
fine by me..

> On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 15:29, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 May 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
> > > I believe this is ready.
> > > 
> > > Alain's point is valid, but I don't believe changes would impact the
> > > usefulness of the draft as is.   If section 4 were removed a requirement
> > > subsection would be needed in section 5 to state that legacy interworking 
> > > is required for four main modes: 
> > > 
> > > a) dual-stack <-> v4 or v6 only
> > > b) v4 only <-> v6 only
> > > c) v4 <-> v4 over v6 infrastructure
> > > d) v6 <-> v6 over v4 infrastructure
> > 
> > Isn't this a list of all the possible combinations?
> > 
> > The point here is, do we need to care for all of these combinations?  
> > For example, in the unmanaged networks, b) was considered out of
> > scope, and that's also recommended against in the 3GPP.  c) is also
> > something that I'm not sure there is yet consensus whether this is a
> > reasonable approach at this point.
> > 
> > One goal of the scenarios/analysis work is to try to identify the
> > actual, critical, mainstream scenarios which call of certain kind of
> > interworking or mechanisms.  I think at least a) or d) fulfill these
> > criteria, but b) and c) might be so-and-so, depending on how you
> > phrase it and which kind of techniques one might have in mind
> > applying..
> > 
> > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 06:20:11PM +0300, Jonne Soininen wrote:
> > > > Hi everybody,
> > > > 
> > > > this is a WG Last Call for comments on sending 
> > > > draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt, "IPv6 Enterprise Network
> > > > Scenarios" to the IESG for consideration as Informational:
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-02.txt
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Please review these documents, and send your feedback to the
> > > > list.  Please also indicate whether or not you believe that this
> > > > document is ready to go to the IESG.
> > > > 
> > > > The last call will end in two weeks, on May 26th.
> > > > 
> > > > Pekka & Jonne
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> 

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