[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
Concatenated replies to several messages:
On 2010-08-19 07:45, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> None of the items in the grocery list below seem to warrant a
> BOF or new WG. V6ops is fully capable and chartered to
> handle this list including not being that busy to not find
> time for the new documents or questions. In fact, just blast
> new drafts to the v6ops mailing list or ask these questions
> of v6ops mailer and folks will reply. If a draft sent to the
> mailer is not being discussed, let the Chairs know and they
> will designate reviewers. In fact some of the questions
> asked can be answered right now.
In my opinion there is an organizational problem that
needs more than just blasting new drafts or asking questions.
Whether it is organized as a separate BOF or a special session
of V6OPS is not so important, but there are many operators who
will soon face IPv6 for the first time and they badly need
organized advice. We will only get that with an organized
On 2010-08-19 09:36, Fred Baker wrote:
> there are answers on the table that are available. I do find
> myself thinking "wiki".
I really don't think that meets the need for well organized
advice; no disrespect to http://www.civil-tongue.net/6and4/
or its peers, but neither that nor vendors' documentation
really fills the bill IMHO.
On 2010-08-19 09:53, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> These sound more like training issues that are better handled by ops
> folks, and ops folks generally participate more in groups like NANOG
> and other *NOGs. There are also some very relevant IPv6 operations
> mailing lists that handle tactical issues.
Correct, but again: newcomers to IPv6 need organized documents
> As Hermant points out above, most of these questions have straight
> forward immediate answers. Generally, addressing a "HOW" is an
> operator specific issue that depends largely on the context and
> problem to be solve.
Absolutely. I hope nobody imagines we can produce "one size fits
> Also, to be frank, i do not believe the majority of the participants
> in the IETF even work or have current experience at network operators.
Then we'd better get contributions from the minority that do.