Re: REVIEW NEEDED: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>In the terminology of the document that case is
> >>
> >>
> >>  ======================================================
> >>    |Application |Host 1 |Service |Host 2 |Application |
> >>    |----------- |Network|Provider|Network|----------  |
> >>    | Host 1 OS  |       |        |       | Host 2 OS  |
> >>  =====================================+================
> >>    |Dual or IPv4|       |        |Dual IP|Dual    IPv4|
> >>  0 |    ----    |Dual IP|Dual IP |  or   |---- or ----|
> >>    |    Dual    |       |        |v4 only|Dual    IPv4|
> >>  ======================================================
> >>
> >>In other words, why would an enterprise choose to paint 
> >>itself into any of the awkward corners of the other 13 scenarios?
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry I cannot respond to such a general statement ok.  
> 
> Let me rephrase my concern. Somebody reading this draft without
> the background knowledge of this WG will simply not realise
> that the fundamental coexistence model is dual stack. They will
> find themselves right in the discussion of the 13 scenarios
> and think that they must pick one of them - but the first question
> anyone should ask is "can I just do a straightforward dual stack
> model?" I would argue that for the large majority of enterprise
> customers the answer will be yes, except for the corner cases
> where they will have to do something special. So I think the draft
> needs to start out by saying this - either by inserting my Scenario 0
> or by saying it in words.
> 
> I don't have this problem with draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05.txt,
> which starts out with base scenario 1, widespread dual stack.

I have the same concern as Brian.

The authors note in the draft that there are a lot of combinations,
(like close to a hundred, I recall from IETF60) and listing them all
the matrix doesn't make sense.  That's OK.  What I was writing in my
review comment is that because the matrix shows a number [less than
all] of entries, it should be sufficiently clearly explained what
those rest are, and properly bring forward those ones that clearly
make sense even if that requires only relatively small amount of text.

For example, one approach I could see might be having two matrices:  
one for the "really common and simple" cases (which a lot of
enterprises would probably look for), and "more complex" cases which
require need to be analyzed in more depth, and solutions provided for.

That might be one way to clearly show that there are both very simple
approaches and and more complex/advanced approaches, without having to 
list every possible combination out there.  There might be other ways 
to do that as well.

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