[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..
Hi Brian,
May be I'm wrong, but if the objective to outsource some of the work is to
"evacuate" it faster, I think is not the right way.
I mean, if they are within the charter, they are operational issues, pushing
it outside, will mean some of the people that is doing effort here, will
divide his time following up to WGs (at least), attending 2 meetings, etc.
At the end, some times this can be rather more time consuming that
proceeding here. I've this experience in projects, when you divide the work
in several WGs and then becomes fragmented, and the people, who is limited
in number and resources, availability, etc., tend to keep only with part of
the work, very concentrated and missing the overall picture.
Consequently, I will agree with this only in case we have extra effort,
which is not the case, but in general in IETF on the contrary. Less people
less effort with the time ..., unfortunately.
I will agree that if we have something that is clearly specific to an
existing WG, then it should be forwarded there. Similarly, if there is some
work that requires a very focused effort, then we should try to create a new
WG, probably.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
> Organización: IBM
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:09:44 +0100
> Para: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..
>
> Pekka,
>
> Loosely speaking, this list seems OK to me personally.
>
> Quite obviously, it would be outrageous to attempt all this
> in one WG. IMHO, we need to either out-source work to other
> WGs or create several new WGs with focussed charters.
> Especially, we need to separate "getting known stuff
> fully operational" from "doing new stuff."
>
> Brian
>
> Pekka Savola wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Based on the discussion on what the WG should be doing, I cooked up my
>> **personal** list of what I consider to be priorities, in some rough
>> categories. As you see, there's a *LOT* that falls under the WG
>> charter, and there is no way we could work on even 1/3 or 1/4 of these
>> at the same time. So, there must be some priorization.
>>
>> I welcome comments especially if you think I've badly misprioritized
>> document/work that relates to the v6ops charter.
>>
>> ======
>>
>> The most important work
>> - finish enterprise analysis
>> - finish requirement(s) for tunneling
>> * to be able to decide whether existing solution(s) are sufficient
>> and if not, get started on specifying new ones
>> - get started on mechanisms (somewhere else?) if needed/necessary
>>
>> Pretty darn important work
>> - the last spin at 3GPP analysis doc, updated IMS scenario
>> - better document the ISP's broadband transition scenarios
>> * draft-asadullah-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-01
>> - finish draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2
>> * waiting for feedback from the IESG telechat..
>> - adopt and finish draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure-tunnels-02.txt
>> * IESG requirement for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2
>> - figure what to do about the NAT-PT deprecation/analysis
>> * draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate
>> - (techno-political) document for v4 NAT users
>> * draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap
>> - IPv6-on-by-default work, fixes need to be integrated in the IETF work
>> * draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption
>> * draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault
>> * etc.
>>
>> Important work
>> - draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure
>> * needs revision to address IESG comments
>> - draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc
>> - draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage
>> - figuring out how to deal with Mobile IP transition issues
>> - security overview of IPv6
>> * draft-savola-v6ops-security-overview
>>
>> Useful work
>> - revising 6to4 spec to be clearer, etc.
>> - draft-palet-v6ops-solution-tun-auto-disc
>> - draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-00
>> - draft-chown-v6ops-port-scanning-implications
>>
>> Difficult to say whether it has gained sufficient momentum, and/or
>> whether this is the right place to do this
>> - draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans
>> - draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6security
>> - draft-vives-v6ops-ipv6-security-ps
>> - draft-kondo-quarantine-overview-01.txt
>>
>> Not sure whether it should be published as RFC, or is sufficiently relevant
>> - draft-chown-v6ops-campus-transition
>> - draft-morelli-v6ops-ipv6-ix
>>
>
>
**********************************
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.