[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-05.txt to Informational
v6ops begs your indulgence to send this document off in an
Informational status.
1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the
Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is
ready to forward to the IESG for publication? Which chair is the
WG Chair Shepherd for this document?
Yes, I believe that it is ready for publication. I will be the proto-
shepherd.
1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
This document has had significant and at times contentious review in
the working group. I believe that the recommendations it makes are
sound and have been accepted by the working group.
1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from
a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, XML,
etc.)?
I could imagine interest in the Internet area. It is essentially
operational, so issues that the security area or others might come up
with are more comments on IPv6 than they are on these points.
1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document
that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For
example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it.
In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the
WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns in the write-up
There has been significant discussion in the WG regarding the
document. At this point, I believe that the document is appropriate
and makes appropriate statements.
1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
One could describe v6ops as a set of groups of people intimately
worried about specific topics among a crowd of people who mostly want
to stay in touch with what happens. As such, it is a pretty quiet
group. However, consensus exists behind this document to the extent
it can be measured.
1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be
separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into the
tracker).
not to my knowledge.
1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against
all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
Yes.
1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?
Yes.
Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also
ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
There are several references to internet drafts. All are non-normative.
The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to
IDs (will delay the publication until all such IDs are also ready
for RFC publicatioin). If the normative references are behind,
what is the strategy for their completion? On a related matter,
are there normative references that are downward references, as
described in BCP 97, RFC 3967 RFC 3967 [RFC3967]? Listing these
supports the Area Director in the Last Call downref procedure
specified in RFC 3967.
This has been addressed.
1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:
* Technical Summary
This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise
networks. These networks are characterized as a network that has
multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or
more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity. The
analysis focuses on a base set of transition notational networks and
requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios document.
Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition analysis
required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6, assuming a Dual-IP
layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node environment, within the
enterprise. Then a set of transition mechanisms are recommended for
each notational network.
* Working Group Summary
This has been discussed in detail in the working group.
* Protocol Quality
This does not specify a protocol.