[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Feedback on proposed charter from the IESG
Hi,
Attached is an attempt to rephrase the charter slightly, mainly taking
Brian's suggestion with a slight edit. Htmlwdiff is at:
http://www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/temp/v6ops-dow-20050120-diff.html
Comments?
Inline I respond to two of Jim's points I didn't apply at this point.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Bound, Jim wrote:
Do you have suggestions for, e.g.:
- what classes of documents are such that we should be working on
(with sufficient specifity so it doesn't seem open-ended),
I believe current input is good and basically needs of the operational
community for deployment.
But I want to note what "operational community" means and maybe we need
to call that out from v6ops view very clearly:
Operational Community:
1. Providers (telco, ISPs, IXs, Mobile Greenfield to deploy 3G IMS et al
they are all different)
2. Enterprises that require operational work from within the IETF for
Enterprise operation.
3. Liaison consortias for deployment that provide v6ops via IETF
operational requirements. Examples are IPv6 Forum, ICANN, NANOG,
Registries, ATIS www.atis.org, NCOIC www.ncoic.org, etc.
Do these need to go in charter? I think everyone agrees on the first
two, but the third is likely trickier, because the IETF has a formal
liaison only with ICANN (a technical liaison group). Obviuously,
anyone from those consortias or forums can come and speak up in the
mailing-list, contact the IETF in a more formal manner, etc.
Description of Working Group:
The global deployment of IPv6 is underway, creating an
IPv4/IPv6 Internet consisting of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and
IPv4/IPv6 networks and nodes. This deployment must be
properly handled to avoid the division of the Internet into
separate IPv4 and IPv6 networks while ensuring addressing and
connectivity for all IPv4 and IPv6 nodes.
I think the above needs re-wording.
Suggested replacement text:
The global deployment of IPv6 is in process. As the deployment evolves
some basic operational requirements will exist, and new operational
requirements will be learned. The IPv6 Operations Working Group is an
IETF working group to work on these operational requirements.
To scope the work for the IPv6 Operations Working Group we define and
provide examples of work within the scope of operational requirements.
I'm a bit hesitant about this for a couple of reasons:
1) people will ask, "_what_ operational requirements?",
2) the text can be read to mean "v6ops defines operational
requirements document(s)" which is probably undesirable, and
3) operational requirements from operators etc. are currently a
source of where new initiatives for new work come from, not the only
one.
Therefore I'm hesitant to writing this about operational requirements.
Obviously, however, if operators etc. present us with _their_
operational requirements, the WG should take those into serious
consideration.. but I don't see why that would need to be in the
charter.Description of Working Group:
The global deployment of IPv6 is underway, creating an IPv4/IPv6
Internet consisting of IPv4-only, IPv6-only and IPv4/IPv6 networks and
nodes. This deployment must be properly handled to avoid the division
of the Internet into separate IPv4 and IPv6 networks while ensuring
addressing and connectivity for all IPv4 and IPv6 nodes.
The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines for the
operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides operational
guidance on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks,
as well as into new network installations.
The main focus of the v6ops WG is to look at the immediate
deployment issues; more advanced stages of deployment and transition
are a lower priority.
The goals of the v6ops working group are:
1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
operational issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. These issues
will be documented in Informational or BCP RFCs, or in
Internet-Drafts.
This work should primarily be conducted by those areas and WGs
which are responsible and best fit to analyze these problems, but
v6ops may also cooperate in focusing such work.
2. 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.
3. As a particular instance of (1) and (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.
4. 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 possible ways how to deploy IPv6 within their
existing IPv4 networks, as well as in new network installations.
These documents should not be normative guides for IPv6 deployment,
and the primary intent is not capture the needs for new solutions,
but rather describe which approaches work and which do not.
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 WG may provide input to those areas/groups, as
needed, and cooperate with those areas/groups in reviewing solutions
to IPv6 operational and deployment problems.
Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the WG only if
there is a substantial expression of interest from the community and
if the work clearly does not fit elsewhere in the IETF.
Specifying any protocols or transition mechanisms is out of scope of
the WG.
Goals and Milestones:
Mar 05 Adopt document describing how to use IPsec with draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2 as WG item
Mar 05 Adopt IPv6 Security Overview as WG item
Mar 05 Submit document describing issues with NAT-PT to IESG for Info
Mar 05 Submit IPv6 deployment using VLANs to IESG for Info
Apr 05 Adopt ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks as WG item
Apr 05 Adopt IPv6 Network Architecture Protection as WG item
Apr 05 Ensure draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault keeps going forward for RFC publication
May 05 Submit document on IPsec w/ draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2 to IESG for Info
May 05 Submit Enterprise Deployment Analysis to IESG for Info
Jun 05 Submit IPv6 Network Architecture Protection to IESG for Info
Jul 05 Submit IPv6 Security Overview to IESG for Info
Jul 05 Submit ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks to IESG for Info