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

Re: proposed new v6ops charter


The v6ops working group will:

1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
  operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
  determine solutions or workarounds to those issues.  This includes
  identifying standards work that is needed in other IETF WGs or
  areas and working with those groups/areas to begin appropriate
  work.  These issues will be documented in Informational or BCP
  RFCs, or in Internet-Drafts.


Yes.

  For example, important pieces of the Internet infrastructure
  such as DNS, SMTP and SIP have specific
operational issues when
  they operate in a shared IPv4/IPv6 network. The v6ops WG will
  cooperate with the relevant areas and WGs to document those
  issues, and find protocol or operational solutions to those
  problems.


DNS IPv6 issues are well handled by DNSop, my understanding was
that one of the SIP wg is eventually talking about v4/v6 coexistence
and I'm not sure anymore about the fate of v6 SMTP.

My point is that those examples should be removed as they are NOT being
addressed by the v6OPS wg, neither in the recent past nor in the proposed
milestones.

2. Provide feedback to the IPv6 WG regarding portions of the IPv6
  specifications that cause, or are likely to cause, operational
  or security concerns, and work with the IPv6 WG to resolve
  those concerns.  This feedback will be published in
  Internet-Drafts or RFCs.

If you remove the specific examples, there is then no reason to single out
the IPv6 wg from the rest of the IETF.


4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify potential security
  risks in the operation of shared IPv4/IPv6 networks, and document
  operational practices to eliminate or mitigate those risks.  This
  work will be done in cooperation with the Security area and other
  relevant areas or working groups.


Again, this could be folded in 1).

5. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze solutions
for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, such as
ISP Networks (including Core, HFC/Cable, DSL & Dial-up networks),
Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small Office), and
Cellular Networks.

  These documents should serve as useful guides to network
  operators and users on how to deploy IPv6 within their existing
  IPv4 networks, as well as in new network installations.


I thought we were done with that.

6. Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment
  scenarios documented in (5) and fully document those open
  issues in Internet-Drafts or Informational RFCs.


ditto.

IPv6 operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or
technologies (such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing
Protocols, DNS or Sub-IP Protocols) are the primary responsibility of
the groups or areas responsible for those protocols or technologies.
However, the v6ops group will provide input to those areas/groups, as
needed, and cooperate with those areas/groups in developing and
reviewing solutions to IPv6 operational and deployment problems.

Specifying any protocols or transition mechanisms is out of scope of the WG.

Goals and Milestones:

Nov 04
Adopt document describing how to use IPsec with draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2 as WG item
Adopt document describing issues with NAT-PT as WG item
Dec 04
Adopt IPv6 Security Overview as WG item
Adopt IPv6 deployment using VLANs as WG item

Jan 05
Adopt ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks as WG item
Adopt IPv6 Network Architecture Protection as WG item

Feb 05
Submit IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunneling using IPsec to IESG for Info
Submit IPv6 deployment using VLANs as WG item

 Mar 05
                Submit IPv6 Security Overview to IESG for Info
		Submit document describing issues with NAT-PT to IESG for Info
 		Submit Enterprise Deployment Analysiss to IESG for Info

 Apr 05		Submit IPv6 Network Architecture Protection to IESG for Info

May 05 Submit ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks to IESG for Info

I do not see any milestones about the work on v6onbydefault, arguably the few pieces
of real ops feedback that was worked on in this wg along DNS issues.

To up-level this discussion, my feedback to the chairs and the AD is that v6ops should focus more on ops issues.
The target of this wg should be to document in RFCs issues that came during deployment with suggested workaround
and/or send draft in the relevant wg when something need to be changed in protocol specs.

Another piece of work that is of interest is collecting feedback from folks doing real deployment and using
the transition toolbox we have since NGtrans. Documenting what works and what does not would be very valuable.

IMHO, anything else should be out of scope.

	- Alain.