De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:36:28 +0200
Para: "ext Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
CC: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Asunto: RE: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
Ladies, and Gentlemen of the v6ops WG,
I understand that the slow process of our little WG causes some
frustration among the participants of the WG.
Like you all know, we have had this scenarios/analysis project going on
for a long time. To facilitate the quickest possible ending of that
project we decided in the IETF#60 meeting to concentrate on finishing
just those tasks. This has practically meant that much of the work has
concentrated on the remaining analysis document, and the now three
requirements documents.
Basically the plan was the following:
1) Finish the remaining analysis documents
2) Stabilize the requirements documents
3) Map the requirements to solutions
4) Refocus v6ops / start possibly needed work in the Internet Area
I think we are somewhere between steps 2 and 3, right?
I understand that people are anxious to start working on the actual
protocols - and believe me - I hope we could have started on the
technical work much earlier! However, sadly we just haven't gotten to
that point.
It is obvious that we have not communicated enough where are we going
and to some of you this has been an indication of us doing things behind
your backs. We'll try to behave better in the future. However, you
shouldn't worry at least Pekka and I plotting behind your backs - we
agree on so few things, it wouldn't be even possible! ;)
Cheers,
Jonne.
On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 22:28, ext Bound, Jim wrote:
Jordi,
On the other way around, I perfectly understand that industry is
leading and some non-standards are
becoming de facto standards, which is not good.
That's why we need to work faster and in parallel instead of in serial
and slow mode. If the WG is not
commenting or providing inputs, but there are no objections either, the
work should be standardized.
This is your confusion and the IETF changed I think about 18 months ago
or when we killed A6. Specs cannot go forward from silence and that is
now true in all IETF WGs I know of in the IETF. I first ran into this
in DHCPv6 working with Ralph as Chair many years ago. I did not like it
at first and did not get it. Then we were able to get the engineers to
comment on DHCPv6 and made the spec 10 times as strong and solid
consensus. So now I am a firm believer in silence is no good as metric
to move a spec forward. Zero conf work had lots of mail thread
discussions and appears to be valid to accept as work item within the
IETF. Bottom line is the Chairs have not broken any rule but enforcing
the rule. Also sometimes the WG is just maxed. For example we did not
get input as fast as we needed it for Enterprise Analysis but then we go
so much I am still parsing it as Ent Analysis editor. I don't think
there is any scientific method to this at all the longer I am around.
There is also no secret discussions that is just absurd. Is it possible
the ADs and Chairs individually don't support specific work, sure, but
that's another matter and their right, and fair too. The objective is
to get the WG excited technically about specific work, and that makes
the Chairs and ADs get a buzz.
Reqarding industry doing defacto standards. Yes this is happening now
with IPv6 Transition and several mechanisms are being deployed now that
are way ahead of the IETF. That will correct itself between the market
and the IETF. At times the market leads, but usually the IETF is in
synch with the curve, but not on time. But, v6ops is doing everything it
can to meet time-to-market and I for one applaud all of us here for that
we are getting real work done and on time. As you know I am very pro
defacto standards and solutions when the IETF don't get it and a large
number of implementers do. We just move forward in industry and keep
sending data to this body called the IETF. The IPv6 Forum is exactly
from the IETF moving to slow and in 1999 implementors took matters into
their own hands and now the IPv6 Forum is a world wide deployment body
that clearly can support defacto standards and with task forces that are
part of the IPv6 Forum across the planet. That is what happens when any
standards body is to slow and does not meet the needs of the market.
I read every mail on this list and a few others and you have not been
treated unfairly at all, but your work has not reached consenus on this
list that I can see as working group items. That does not mean it is
not good work but maybe not work in the IETF, as a question? Ask your
self is it a protocol, operational tool that can be standard without
forcing implementation of protocols through configuration, a best
current practice, etc.? And most important "what problem does your work
solve"?
What I have found with my work in the IETF when it stalls it is usually
there was no consensus on the problem it solves or there needs to first
be discussion of everyones assumptions. For example, I believe many
customers will simply shut off IPv4 on a dual IPv4/IPv6 subnetwork and
cascade that policy expediently as a transition strategy across all
their other subnetworks until the entire customers Intranet or Internet
is IPv6 dominant with only pockets of legacy IPv4 for transition.
Educating all why and how is what I am doing now and once they see that
then solving the problem can move forward. I also think most customers
now will go get IPv6 prefixes and 6to4 is highly questionable as widely
used for the transition and that is a new change in the market some of
us have learned directly. These are just examples of others who have
the same problem and I don't think it is because of secret meetings in
the IETF.
I don't think the chairs or ADs warrant your mail and its unfair as one
working group members input these chairs work their ass off and do what
they can to keep things moving. Now if they don't listen or ignore
consensus I will be the first to throw tomatoes, but I don't see that in
this specific case.
P.S. Pekka - I still do not agree with you about 70% of the time :--)
Regards,
/jim
--
Jonne Soininen
Nokia
Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com