[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [v4tov6transition] Some opinions about establish a new WG

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your reaction,
Further comments below.
 
Le 29 août 2010 à 19:53, Joel Jaeggli a écrit :

> On 8/27/10 11:00 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
>> 
>> Le 27 août 2010 à 23:52, Randy Bush a écrit :
>> 
>>>> If v6ops isn't the place to do this work, and write consensus
>>>> answers to ALL questions that people involved in IPv6 deployments
>>>> may ask
>>> 
>>> then why the heck would v6ops exist?
>> 
>> Whether v6ops is the place not only for OAM questions, but ALSO for
>> customer and product-vendor considerations, is IMHO still unclear. 
>> Making official where the work on a comprehensive and easily readable
>> FAQ-document may start would be welcome.
> 
> I'll just leave items 1 and 4 from the v6ops charter here:
> 
> 1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
> operational issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
> determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. These issues
> will be documented in Informational or BCP RFCs, or in
> Internet-Drafts.

Limited to "Operational issues".

This doesn't include, in my understanding, questions like
"Are there reasons for users to ask for IPv6, in addition to IPv4, if their providers continues to offer IPv4 (be it across cascades of NATs? If yes, what are these reasons?"
"What are the security implications for a user of e-mail and of the web, with one of the main OSes, if it has IPv6 enabled?" 
Permitting v6ops, or a new group, to provide simple answers to such questions would IMHO facilitate IPv6 deployment.
 
> This work should primarily be conducted by those areas and WGs
> which are responsible and best fit to analyze these problems, but
> v6ops may also cooperate in focusing such work.

> 4. 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.
> 
> Regarding a comprehensive FAQ
> 
> I'm not an encyclopedist

Neither am I.
I just noted that, on many subjects, FAQ answers are very convenient.

> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die)
> 
> but I have some experience with shepherding large documents through the
> ietf, and I will say that large interdependant document series can be
> challenging to get through the process in a timely fashion, get proper
> review on and or build consenus for. and thus I tend to favor dsicrete
> documents.
> 
> Randy and Lucy built a lovely wiki for the purpose of generating a faq
> something like 2 years ago, which had more than few contributors from
> this community.

> there are limits as to the utility of a faq without
> regular updates.

Same view here.
One update per year, for example, could be a reasonable target.
A reader-friendly way to number successive versions shouldn't be difficult to adopt (RFC 99nnnn for version nnnn, or RFCxxxx-nnnn, are examples of what could be done if there is the will).
A different production and approval procedure than that of other RFCs isn't needed.

Regards,
RD

  
> 
>> RD
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> randy
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>