[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
Fred,
It is not a strident attitude. DSTM was work in the IETF for minimum
two years, has been deployed in test networks, and the response was the
authors response not Jim's response.
I think we need applicability around it for sure.
Please don't threaten me or the authors work because of a quick email
that I stated would have more serious follow up. That is inappropriate
and I would like an apology for your assumption that was my intention?
I think you jumped the gun on the response. We are not going to remove
DSTM at this time, first we would like to attempt applicability
statements.
Thanks for your input,
/jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 2:58 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Pekka Savola; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
>
> Jim:
>
> I don't think Pekka was saying that Dual-Stack as described in RFCs
> 1933 and 2765 is not important to operators. I think that he was
> saying that extending that to include an Experimental protocol that
> has specific algorithms attached to it that haven't been agreed to
> seems an odd recommendation from a working group document.
>
> I think you need to take a little less strident attitude. Your
> commentary re DSTM sounds a little like "this is my protocol and you
> don't get to comment on it". If you can't find a way to accept
> Pekka's commentary, we may need to make this no longer be a working
> group draft, and advise the IESG to ensure that any RFC Editor path
> submission of it be published with a note stating that it was not
> agreed to by the relevant working group.
>
> Lets find common ground here, guys.
>
> Fred
>
>
> On Aug 8, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Bound, Jim wrote:
>
> > We are not removing DSTM from this spec all the authors know for a
> > fact
> > it is important to operators. If you want further applicability
> > statements we can do that and there is other work in progress.
> >
> > Thanks for you input,
> > /jim
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> >> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> >> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 3:47 PM
> >> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> >> Subject: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> (I'll put two most separable & possibly most discussable items in
> >> separate mails.)
> >>
> >> In 8.1:
> >>
> >> Later in the transition process, after the enterprise has
> >> transitioned to a predominately IPv6 infrastructure, the
> architect
> >> should implement the Dual-IP Transition Mechanism [DSTM,
> DSTM+]. Or
> >> in the case of early deployment of IPv6-dominant
> networks DSTM can
> >> be used too.
> >>
> >> and in 8.4:
> >>
> >> DSTM [DSTM, DSTM+] is a useful tunneling mechanism for later in the
> >> enterprise transition or deployment of IPv6-dominant network links
> >> is desired. DSTM is to being submitted as an IETF Experimental RFC.
> >>
> >> ==> as it is, DSTM is a way too overloaded a mechanism to be
> >> referred to
> >> without more disclaimers or description. As it is, different
> >> people use
> >> "DSTM" to mean at least the following things:
> >> a) v4-in-v6 tunnels
> >> b) automatically set-up v4-in-v6 tunnels
> >> c) automatic set up of v4-in-v6 tunnels when the host
> >> doesn't have v4 address and an app wants to create a v4 socket
> >> d) automatic monitoring and tear-down of said v4-over-v6 tunnel
> >> when the host detects it no longer needs the address/
> >> connectivity
> >> e) plus a number of extensions for even more colorful setups.
> >>
> >> a) doesn't require DSTM; b) can be achieved using a tunnel
> broker; c)
> >> does not require IETF interoperability (a local
> implementation choice
> >> when/how to launch the v4-in-v6 activation). d) could also
> >> be considered in
> >> the same category (there are no bits in the wire or anything
> >> requiring
> >> interoperability AFAICS on when the host removes the tunnel),
> >> though I'm
> >> skeptical whether even providing that would be a good
> >> engineering choice.
> >>
> >> My point is that I'm having hard time figuring out:
> >> 1) what the document means when it's recommending DSTM, and
> >> 2) based on my analysis above, I do not believe that DSTM
> >> (in the way that
> >> I think it's being referred to) is even needed.
> >>
> >> Therefore my suggestion is to remove references to DSTM
> >> (preferable) or
> >> greatly clarify the assumptions and the requirements on
> why it should
> >> be necessary. (On the other hand, if the DSTM spec only
> described the
> >> algorithms for doing c) and d) above in my list, I would have
> >> a lot fewer
> >> concerns -- but as it is, I believe a reference would confuse
> >> more than
> >> help.)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves
> king, yet the
> >> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> >> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A
> Clash of Kings
> >>
> >>
> >
>