Re:Feedback on proposed charter from the IESG

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 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 ?

Yes, many people have been deploying IPv6-only networks for some time 
now.  But we have to try to prioritize the work somehow.  I think most 
will agree that it is more important to get dual-stack implications 
figured out before using a lot of effort to think about what issues 
IPv6-only would bring.

That said, this might be something that might change in the next 
rechartering, depending on how the work gets done.

> 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.

It doesn't say anything about excluding any input, from anywhere :-). 
It just says that this WG should go to the network operators and users 
and ask them to list their issues.  If they tell those "voluntarily", 
that's fine. If someone else tells about an issue, that's also fine.

Feel free to suggest a rewording, now or at the charter review stage 
later on.

> 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 ?

I removed everything in ()'s.

> 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".

This is unnecessary, because the text already says "common network 
environments, such as"; the list is not exclusive (emphasis below 
mine):

  Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze solutions
  for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, *such as*
  ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small
  Office), and Cellular Networks.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings