[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Next steps
Hi Margaret,
Agree with your comments (for example your point about security is section 4
of the charter), in general, but reading the charter I still don't think
there is any place where is said that we should have proceed in serial-mode.
Should we appeal that decision ? May be I'm wrong, so somebody can provide a
prove that this has been approved by the WG ?
Same with the rationale being followed to decide (by the WG) that no more
documents are accepted as WG items, and then some are now accepted and not
some others. Again, appeal ?
By the way, we the "Euro6IX" folks (including the 8 bigger European Telcos),
have proposed several documents, including operational security implications
of IPv6. This is fully within the charter, and is being ignored as a WG
item. Again, should we appeal ?
Also the same folks proposed some works regarding operational transition
issues, like the auto-discovery of the TEP. This work was even backed-up by
the request of the chairs. Still not even suggested to be WG item, so I ask
now for it. If nobody objects in 2 days, as has been done with the other
documents, clearly is accepted. Right ? Fair enough ?
Now, looking at the charter
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html):
1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. This includes
identifying standards work that is needed in other IETF WGs or
areas and working with those groups/areas to begin appropriate
work. These issues will be documented in Informational or BCP
RFCs, or in Internet-Drafts.
-> Some (not to say all) of the stalled work (the one not being accepted as
WG item), is within this section. This is clearly the case for the
transitions related documents and also for those related to security.
-> Furthermore, the same is supported by:
6. Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment
scenarios documented in (5) and fully document those open
issues in Internet-Drafts or Informational RFCs. Work to find
workarounds or solutions to basic, IP-level operational
or security issues that can be solved using widely-applicable
transition mechanisms, such as dual-stack, tunneling or
translation.
-> Now can tell me, where it says something about the serial-mode ? If not,
please demonstrate that the decision is done by the WG and is fair. Same for
why only a few documents are being proposed as WG items ?
So in my opinion, what we should do (in PARALLEL mode whenever possible):
1) Correct the previous mistakes with decisions that aren't backed up by the
WG, even appeal them if required (this includes serial-mode work and unfair
acceptance of WG items).
2) Continue with the scenarios/analysis.
3) Continue with the operational issues regarding facilitating the
transition. Some already identified and with live documents. Others may need
new work. Do we have the adequate transition mechanisms to cover all the
scenario/analysis ?, what about 6in6, 6in4, 6inudp, others ? What about the
solutions (protocols, new/existing, changes to existing) for zeroconf in
3GPP, or in other networks ?
4) Continue with the operational issues regarding IPv6 security
implications, of both only IPv6 and IPv4/IPv6 networks. This may still need
some more work, some new documents, etc., as those existing may be not
enough.
5) Continue with whatever other operational issues may be required to work
on. Somebody can point out to some specific issues here ?
6) Is the applications work completed (not an expert here). Somebody feel
something else is missing ?
7) Anything missing regarding DNS operation ? SMTP, SIP, other protocols ?
8) Should any of the operational issues fall into the scope of another area
or WG for developing a new standard ? Or are we just describing the issues
and providing guidelines of how existing protocols can solve it ?
We will need probably to define concrete milestones, I guess may need
re-chartering with the consensus of the WG. And if something is not clearly
defined in the actual WG charter (for example if the interpretation of the
charter is not the same for the WG, overall), then we also need to
re-charter.
My position is that if we made a mistake with the charter, and we ignored it
so much time, now, we can't reject work because that, unless there is a WG
general consensus and no objections.
Probably I'm missing a lot of extra issues, possibilities, and so on, so
let's hope the rest of the WG can speak up !
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:33:15 -0500
> Para: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, "Soininen
> Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
> CC: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Asunto: Re: Next steps
>
>
> Okay, I'll bite!!! :-)
>
> Speaking only as an interested individual and long term ngtrans/v6ops
> participant...
>
> I would like to see the v6ops finish up the scenario/analysis
> documents and start focusing on some of the important IPv6
> operational issues that should (IMO) be the province of this WG.
>
> For instance, I think that we could do some valuable work studying
> the security implications of running a dual-stack enterprise network
> and documenting some operational best practices for that type of
> deployment.
>
> I'd also like to see us engage some the early IPv6 ISP-type operators
> (Japanese ISPs, the 6Net folks, Internet 2, etc.) and discuss their
> experiences, particularly an operational problems that they have
> experienced.
>
> Margaret
>
>
> At 9:00 PM +0100 11/3/04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi Jonne, Pekka,
>>
>> I've requested, several times, in the last couple of days, to get the
>> information about any proposal that you have for the WG.
>>
>> I will much prefer if you can provide any inputs, and we all discuss about
>> it.
>>
>> No reply means to me that you don't have any proposal (as nothing should be
>> secret and openly discussed as you already indicated !), so anyone with some
>> ideas should start it, otherwise, we are missing precious time in the next
>> meeting.
>>
>> Please, let me know urgently.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************
>> Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
>> Presentations and videos on line at:
>> http://www.ipv6-es.com
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of
>> the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient
>> be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
>> contents of this information, including attached files, is
>> prohibited.
>
>
>
**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.