How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence Requirement I-D

[Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>]

Hi Marcello,

You may not remember my e-mail of may 22:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00808.html,

It dealt with the relationship between
- my draft-despres-v6ops-apbp-00 (APBP)
- your draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00

Since the matter of the APBP I-D fits in the scope of your Requirement 
I-D, I take the opportunity of a reminder to (hopefully) clarify the 
subject.


Your Requirement draft is about
 "IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition: Requirements for solutions".
Its scope, defined in the introduction, is:
 "requirements for solutions to IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and eventual
transition in a scenario in which dual stack operation is not the norm"
It includes, among others, scenarios for:
A. "an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 system across an IPv6
network"
B. "an IPv6 system connecting to an IPv4 system".

Now, in the APBP draft:
- Section 2 introduces a new scenario for A.
- Section 5.2 introduces a new scenario for a variant of B (where the
IPv6 system is modified to obtain E2E IPv4 transparency for IPv4/IPv6
encapsulated packets)

The purpose of these new scenarios is:
- Scalability (scenario A)
- E2E transparency (scenario B)


To introduce visibility of these scenarios in your draft without too 
much reorganization, I suggest this possibility:

In your I-D,
 " 2.1.2 Scenarios that do not require translation
   2.1.3 Scenarios that require translation "
would be replaced by:
 " 2.1.2 Scenarios that do not require translation between IPv6 and IPv4
     2.1.2.1 Scenarios based only on tunnels
             <current 2.1.2 text>
     2.1.2.1 Scenarios combining tunnels and address-port borrowing
	     < A text, not too long, I could volunteer to provide >
   2.1.3 Scenarios that require translation between IPv6 and IPv4
             <current 2.1.3 text > "


The questions are then:
- Is it agreed that something needs to be done? (And if not, what 
objections need to be discussed)
- If it is agreed, are there better ways to include APBP scenarios in 
the Requirement I-D?


Regards.

Rémi