[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..
Hi Pekka,
In general good proposal. I will like to suggest some changes, see below,
already prioritized following the criteria that I think is required, and
simplified a little bit.
Regards,
Jordi
Group 1
> 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
I will say that is not good that a new WG should take care of new mechanisms
(if they are required). This will slow down the process too much (minimum 6
months), and it not clear that we can't do that with the current charter, or
even a small modification of it.
Also, I think this
> - draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc
belongs to what I called Group 1, and is ready to be closed. Otherwise will
be good the received inputs, objections or whatever !
Group 2
> 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.
I think
> - draft-palet-v6ops-solution-tun-auto-disc
belongs to this group, and is 80% ready. Is very useful for the zeroconfig,
assisted tunneling, etc.
Group 3
> Important work
> - draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure
> * needs revision to address IESG comments
> - draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage
> - figuring out how to deal with Mobile IP transition issues
> - security overview of IPv6
> * draft-savola-v6ops-security-overview
Group 4
> Useful work
> - revising 6to4 spec to be clearer, etc.
> - draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-00
> - draft-chown-v6ops-port-scanning-implications
Group 5
> 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
I'm tempted to move all this to the Group 2 or 3, together with the
security-overview. If this work needs to specify new protocols, then I might
consider another WG (existing probably, not necessarily a new one), but I
believe it can be approached with existing protocols within IETF.
I consider security an extremely important issue for the deployment of IPv6,
as an operational issue that falls clearly in the scope of our charter.
By the way, I don't think is a question of momentum, is a question of people
reviewing, and we all know that the problem is the same with other very
important documents, which at the end pass by "no objection" despite Jim
observations ! Let's be honest with ourselves, please ! I think is very
stupid to try to convince ourselves about what is so evident. And yes is my
own fault also, I will like to do more work review more documents, but
specially the last 3-4 months has been almost impossible. Now I've plenty of
time during Xmas and will do much more.
Group 6
> Not sure whether it should be published as RFC, or is sufficiently relevant
> - draft-chown-v6ops-campus-transition
> - draft-morelli-v6ops-ipv6-ix
Not sure either, but I will say is part of the scenarios documents.
My conclusion is that we will have probably only 3 groups instead of 6,
which can proceed almost in parallel, even if takes a few extra months
(3-6), because that will be the same delay it will take creating a new WG,
or even outsourcing to existing ones.
Missing items, other future candidate work which fall in the actual charter
? Work that is very close related and requires a charter modification to be
approached here, if its the best place to be done ?
Views from the rest of the WG, please ?
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:40:59 +0200 (EET)
> Para: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: A personal take on WG's priorities..
>
> 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
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
**********************************
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.