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

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:52:08AM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
> >                       
> >  Most of these are discussed in Section 4 of [BSCN].   Here we
> >  comment on those aspects that we believe are in scope for this  
> > analysis document. Thus we have not included network management,  
> > multihoming, multicast or application transition analysis here, but  
> > these aspects should be addressed in Phase 2.
> > 
> > ==> I may be misunderstanding the last line, but isn't that saying 
> > that section 7.4 should be addressing this, or are you referring to 
> > the "next round" of enterprise evaluation (beyond the basic concepts) 
> > ?
> 
> This is a huge bug we need to fix this.  Good catch.  This was mean't to
> say these are next level common transition issues for deployment all our
> v6ops docs have not addressed so lets not pick on enterprise analysis.  

Ooops, yes, I misread too, so I agree it's not in 7.4, instead say something
like "these aspects are of general applicability and thus out of scope for
this specific enterprise analysis".

Thanks Pekka.
 
> > ==> is there actually any justification for using RFC3041 in 
> > enterprise environments?  Should one put such a doubt here if not?  
> > Personally, I'm having trouble figuring out the actual problem...
> 
> Me to I defer to my co-authors :--)

While it exists, we cite it, I think?   (i.e. we kind of take the node
requirements viewpoint?)
 
> > ==> there is one author too many (6 > 5).  If it is not possible to 
> > reduce the number of authors, the alternative would be just listing 
> > the editor in the front page, and the authors in the contact 
> > information or contributors.
> 
> I want to fight for an exception on this ok.  So I will get ready to
> ask.  I understand but these folks names all should be listed.  

Pekka, you have never met Jim Bound Yanick Pouffary?  That's one person :)
 
> > The parallel infrastructure would only ever be seen as an interim step
> 
> > towards a full dual-stack deployment on a unified infrastructure.
> > 
> > ==> could 'would only ever be seen' be reworded?  That seems like a 
> > complex structure of words for us foreigners..
> 
> Will reflect.

"would typically be deployed as an interim" ?
 
-- 
Tim