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

[<remi.despres@rd-iptech.com>]

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.

Remi

----- 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
>>>>>