[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposed new v6ops charter
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Alain Durand wrote:
Do you have further examples in mind to talk about here? IMHO, it's
good to have examples, and I didn't remove them (even if they were
done) because they were illustrating which kind of issues the charter
was referring to.
The experience has proven that such specific items are better
covered where the clues are, i.e. in the relevant wg and not in
v6ops. Participation to those wgs by v6ops members is more likely to
get the work done (by exporting v6 clues outside of v6ops) as oppose
to try to do everything in v6ops.
Totally agree here of course. The problem is most felt, however, in
cases where the WG in charge or that particular technology (e.g.,
SMTP) has been closed ages ago, and possibly even the mailing list has
been killed.
But again, do you have examples to put here? Either of the cases
where this work should be done elsewhere (possibly with assitance from
v6ops), or where this could be done here?
What do you call the campus transition document then? Granted the
text in the second paragraph should be tweaked a bit to fit.
I do not like much the idea of analyzing generic solutions in
generic environment, this is a bit like telling people how to run
their network. I'd rather like to see things like "deployment
reports", explaining what has been found to work and what not. I
think the campus document is much closer to that in its spirit than
guiding "network operators and users on how to deploy IPv6 within
their existing IPv4 networks"
I personally see little harm in creating a document which folks could
read for guidance. It's not a mandate, of course, but better than
nothing. Is it useful to put out 5 documents instead of just one (one
for different flavours of BB ISP deployment)? I see no reason to make
hard and fast decisions on this one way or the other. Both kind of
documents may be useful. (Though I'm not 100% certain how useful it is
to publish, as RFCs, too specific documents.)
The v6onbydefault work is close to done and going forward as it is so
there is no need to call it out here, AFAICS.
Maybe there could be another discussion on how to get this one out of
the current deadlock.
Yes. I'll open a separate thread on this.
If you refer to some other potential work items relating or close to
"v6onbydefault", feel free to suggest them. I'd expect those are just
ones that will come up when folks think of something.
Precisely. And this is what the charter should specifically mention
as potential wg work items.
In the charter itself or suggested deliverables?
Suggest text? :-)
About specific examples, the "don't
publish unreachable" draft may be resurrected in DNSops and there is
significant overlap with v6onbydefault. This is a cross-area that
needs more work.
This seems a clear DNSOP thing which v6ops should not get entangled
in, except for making sure folks here will make their voices heard in
dnsop about the draft's relation to IPv6 addresses.
"Issues that come during deployment" can be interpreted either widely
or narrowly. And depending on that..
The exact wording to make it clearer is left as an exercise for the
chairs and AD ;-)
That's likely the only way to do that. Some seem uncomfortable with
that, though, because they see v6ops charter as potentially being
receptive to Foo..
To keep this practical, do you think some of those proposed
deliverables explicitly mentioned in the draft charter would be
inappropriate for the scope of this WG?
No. However, most of them are left-overs from the previous incarnation
of v6ops.
Sure, I was just asking you to apply the policy you proposed to the
previous drafts as a thought exercise which ones would be up for
adoption if those hadn't been published and we had the policy you've
in mind in place.
In a way, I tried to use this tool to get some concrete idea what kind
of policy you had in mind. Apparently you also had a "wide"
interpretation of operational topics, so we're on the same page.
IMHO, mech-v2 would certainly be better off if it was transfered to
the ipv6 wg... the pace of progress is just amazingly slow.
Well, its past IESG evals already, and now David Kessens just needs to
make a decision how to interpret one Steve Bellovin's comment..
There have been several mobility experiments with v4 & v6 networks,
I remember for example a draft from Carl Williams reporting results.
Certainly more is needed in that area without necessarily going
through the deadly scenario/analysis/paralysis route.
Not sure how useful it is to report such specific results as RFCs. It
seems there are many considerations about mobility here, which are
best answered outside of v6ops with sufficient mobility experience,
e..g, the miptrans list and a potential BoF.
The other area that require attention is IPv6 only networks, that
involved translation and/or IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling. This is the
case that for many years many have considered as an end game
scenario, but apparently, it seems that such networks are being
deployed today. Again, operational feedback to root
goals/requirements for potentially missing tools are needed.
It would certainly be useful to get input from users which want to be
designing v6-only networks why they want to do it, what issues they've
faced, etc., but I'm not sure if there has been any of that..
Do you think the proposed charter covers those two directions in an
adequate manner?
It's generic enough to include both, and this seems to be good enough
for me at least... We can't hope to enumerate all the potential items
in the charter.. If you think something should be spelled out, you
can always suggest text.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings