[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re:Feedback on proposed charter from the IESG
I radically disagree with:
"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."
We know how long takes the IETF process, so if we put in lower priority
"more advanced stages", then we are endangering the deployment. Furthermore,
where is the bar for what is advanced for you or for me ? For example, we
are now deploying IPv6-only networks. Is that advanced or not ?
Also: "1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify", I'm
not a network operator, but do the work for some of them. So this will
actually exclude my input. Should be reworded.
Then, if we say "ISP Networks (including Core, HFC/Cable, DSL & Dial-up
networks),", we should mention all the technologies (for example PLC),
otherwise is better to just say "including Core and any kind of access
network). Right ?
If we say "Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small Office), and
Cellular Networks.", somehow we are limiting to those scenarios. Tomorrow we
can come up with a new one. Consequently, it will be better to finish this
sentence with something like: "..., cellular networks, or other unforeseen
scenarios which may become relevant and are not covered by the previous
ones".
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> Fecha: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:30:40 +0200 (EET)
> Para: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> CC: <jim.bound@hp.com>
> Asunto: 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.
**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.