Re: moving when all the scenarios are not yet complete [RE: DSTM]

["Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>]

Hello,

I generally agree with Pekka. The original idea was to have the
scenarios/analysis documents stabilized before moving forward. Most of
the documents have stabilized (are at the IESG). I don't believe we need
RFC numbers before going forward. I don't think the IESG will have that
strong objections that the WGs technological choices will be totally
overruled. And if there are (and they have valid points) we'll take care
of them case-by-case.

We (chairs - Pekka and I) are in dialog to find out from our ADs what is
the correct way forward with this. I hope we'll get a proposal for the
way forward from them quite soon. However, I don't think anything will
change in the original way forward: When the scenarios/analysis
documents are done, the work on the solutions can move forward. 
I hope and believe that we are getting close to that time. I'm sorry it
took longer than expected.

Anyways, I don't think it is in our (the chairs) interest or in the
interest of the IESG to be unfair in this (or in any other) point. Let's
be patient for a day or two and let's make sure our scenarios/analysis
documents go forward as planned.

Cheers,

Jonne.

On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 00:40, ext Pekka Savola wrote:
> A new topic to better suit the subject..
> 
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > > But when I saw the mail Teredo was going to move without doing
> > finishing
> > > all scenarios/analysis docs I thought we were opening the flood gates
> > > for all mechanisms.  I could be wrong?  But all mechanisms should be
> > > applied to that entire set of work efforts.
> > 
> > I have two issues with this statement.
> > 
> > First, I don't think we should wait until *all* scenario documents are
> > completed before we standardize or publish *any* new transition
> > technology. The bar ought to be lower: we should progress a transition
> > technology if we agree that it is clearly needed by at least one
> > scenario. Otherwise, we could keep inventing new scenarios, and we would
> > always have to wait until yet another scenario analysis is completed.
> > 
> > Second, we have to define what "completed" means. What is the decision
> > point? We have actually all but completed the "unmanaged networks"
> > evaluation: we went through the working group last call, and the
> > document is now on the IESG plate. Based on this scenario, doing work on
> > Teredo is not spurious.
> 
> What Christian said. The analysis of 3GPP, Unmanaged and ISP have all
> already left this WG (with rough consensus) and are at IESG
> evaluation, or beyond the IESG evaluation (and none of documents got
> IESG pushback on Teredo/BGPtunnel/etc.).  I fail to see what more one
> could expect here.  Does it matter what we decide e.g.  in the
> Enterprise document, if Unmanaged, ISP, or 3GPP already requires a
> certain kind of mechanism?
> 
> There is, however, an argument to be made if a mechanism would be
> required in multiple scenarios, where one or more of the scenarios was
> not finished yet -- then the question would be what would be the basis
> on where to evolve the specification? (for example, let's consider
> ISATAP in 3GPP: one could remove direct tunneling support, but then it
> might become useless (at least to some) in Enterprise -- for
> mechanisms which dependencies it might be worth a bit more of
> wait-and-see, but e.g. Teredo has only been proposed in the Unmanaged
> scenario.
> 
> So IMHO this is an argument for moving forward (if there is consensus,
> as there seems to be in Unmanaged and ISP) in all the scenarios which
> are already at the IESG (read: when there is consensus in the WG, and
> there is no objection at the IESG).  The mechanisms required by
> scenarios which are not done yet IMHO cannot go forward at this point.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com