Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..

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

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 09:07:33PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> Putting all the work relating to protocols certainly seems to be a 
> relatively easily separable piece of the current charter.

Stepping up a mile or two, there is some appeal to having two WG threads,
be it one WG or two WGs:

WG1: "Operational issues with IPv6" that 
  a) analyses scenarios and identifies issues, documents requirements 
     from the issues
  b) produces informational documents on bcp in deployment
 
WG2: "IPv6 transition mechanisms" (ironically back to ngtrans :) that:
  a) takes requirements from WG1 and breaks out specific protocol proposals
  b) defines the protocols, may be more than one protocol per problem space,
     though ideally there is just one

> Campus transition, yes -- if Tim and others think it's worth 
> publishing.

For me, that I-D is a) a validator for testing ent-scenrios usefulness (which
I think it passed) and b) a place to document the transition tools we're
using on site, plus some random other issues that probably are best left
outside such an I-D :)   Some people seemed to like it though.
 
>  - finish enterprise analysis

So now we know why you and Jonne are the chairs :)

>  - draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage

This is kind of ready, but can wait for ent-analysis.  It's easy to point
people at a draft if they ask about it.   Most people are just doing it.
 
>  - security overview of IPv6

This is a biggie lurking low down on your list.

>  - draft-chown-v6ops-port-scanning-implications

I thought this would be part of "security overview of IPv6" but really it's
actually part of "BCP on enterprise IPv6 address planning".  After the
IETF there's a small (6NET) group working on an I-D in that area from
exerience gained to date.
 
>  - draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-00 (maybe)

That one is a scoping document for some 6NET-related work, also with Cisco,
and is helping us to define experiments to run to evaluate support for
renumbering in IPv6 networks.   It complements Fred's draft (RFC to be).
The audience of it is broad, not just an admin about to do a renumbering.

Tim