[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

BOUNCE v6ops@ops.ietf.org: Non-member submission from [Rémi Després <remi.despres@rd-iptech.com>] (fwd)

Approved: ops
From remi.despres@rd-iptech.com Fri Nov 05 12:34:16 2004 
Received: from [193.252.22.29] (helo=mwinf0203.wanadoo.fr)
	by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD))
	id 1CQ3IF-0008lF-UX
	for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:34:16 +0000
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mwinf0203.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP
	id BF32F100008F; Fri,  5 Nov 2004 13:34:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Rmi (APuteaux-105-1-3-243.w80-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.11.85.243])
	by mwinf0203.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP
	id 24556100008E; Fri,  5 Nov 2004 13:34:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <006e01c4c333$c29ec530$0200a8c0@Rmi>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <remi.despres@rd-iptech.com>
To: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
References: <BDB07704.4DFB1%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Subject: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:34:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=2.64

Jordi, Jim, Pekka,

As explained in http://perso.wanadoo.fr/remi.despres/4to6.htm there seems to
be important missing pieces for a number of desirable transition
configurations, with possible solutions to satisfy these needs.
IMHO, some group work somehere on the subject should  be possible.

Rémi

----- Original Message -----
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..


Jim,

My view is that we should only work in new transition mechanism if there is
something _really_ not covered already, but we also should work on those "de
facto" mechanism to get standardized if it make sense.

Regards,
Jordi

De: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Fecha: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:10:57 -0500
Para: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>,
<jordi.palet@consulintel.es> 
CC: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Asunto: RE: A personal take on WG's priorities..

But I don't agree we should not work on new emerging transition mechanisms
that in fact are being deployed as we talk here.
/jim

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