Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:01:51PM +0200, Jerome Durand wrote:
> Well, on my notes I have the question Alain asked at the end that was: 
> "Who would be happy if TC just take TSP and make it an RFC?" You don't 
> mention this question that had a large majority of yes. Then I would be 
> happy to get the "official" minutes as well :)
> 
> Jerome

Jerome, I took rough notes (which I sent to Thomas and Kurtis).

The key thing was that half the room voted 'yes' to taking forward v6tc
work for 6-in-4 and 4-in-6 (and not for general tunnels, for non IPv6 uses).

Here are the lines from my notes where I counted votes, rest of session
notes snipped.   My feeling is the questions were not well thought out in
advance, which is a shame as the rest of the v6tc session was very useful
and (apparently :) well prepared.   After the first few questions, I think
people in the room lost interest/focus... we didn't have 3 or 4 well
considered questions prepared.

--

(Durand) How many people interested in TC work for 6 in 4 or 4 in 6 only?
- Maybe 50%
(Durand) For any kind of tunnels?  
- Maybe 10
(Narten) Worried if we're short-sighted like this
(Meyer) Would be to everyone's benefit to find balance of IPv6 need and generic solution for other uses.
(Kurtis) We don't know enough yet.  Getting a consolidated effort across WGs doing this would be useful.
(Ron Boniker?) Suggest rule out any solution that can't be generalised to other domains.
(Savola) Need to analyse generic issue if we go wider, else lose IPv6 deadlines
(Hinden) Have a zillion tunnel protocols and I don't see advantage of new generic one.  I vote for limited scope.   Concerned that we are reinventing deployed solutions? (broker?)
(Durand) (hat off) Schizophrenia or IETF - requirements analysis vs desire to be generic... ball going back and forth.   Chances of success higher if we stay focused on IPv6.
(Townsley) Naive to think we'd create something to kill other protocols.
(Narten)  Brokers are being shipped - why is that not good enough?  
(Narten) Go with TSP as is?
- 10 people
(Durand) Is TSP good enough to get by on?
- about 10 people
(Durand) Need something more?
- 10 people
(???) Is there a crying demand for this by the ISPs?
(Durand) Common implementations would be nice
(Narten) Which ISPs need to solve this problem?
- 4 people
(Durand) Which ISPs think all is done?  No problem?
- ???
(JDurand) I'm happy with TSP.
(Durand) Happy if just do TSP to RFC?
(Parent) TSP is just a draft - need expert review
(Thaler) Maybe L2TP is enough?    TSP doesn't solve TEP discovery.
(Durand) Who wants TEP discovery solved?
- 12 yes
(Durand) And not?
- none