Re: draft-kawamura-ipv6-isp-listings review

[Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Brian

Thanks for the review.
Appologies for the very roughly written draft.
My comments inline

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-07-16 03:19, Fred Baker wrote:
>> Could I interest you in doing a thorough review of draft-kawamura-ipv6-isp-listings and commenting to v6ops?
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> This short draft proposes guidelines for use by listing sites that report on
> the level of IPv6 support from various ISPs. There are a number of such
> sites, and they don't all report on the same criteria, so the draft proposes
> seven common criteria, split into 'basic' and 'advanced'.
> 
> I believe this document is useful, but it needs some debate about the exact
> criteria proposed, and it needs discussion with the people operating
> existing listing sites. If they don't agree, the document is going nowhere.

I agree with you.
I am talking with a few people on the IPv6 forum.
I believe some of them will be at Maatricht, hopefully
they will stay until Friday. That's only one of the
list makers, so I should go and contact more.

> 
> More detail
> -----------
> 
> It seems like a good idea for all these listing sites to use common criteria.
> Whether they would do so in practice is another question. (How many ISPs
> do you know who refer to RFC 4084 in their sales literature?) That's why
> the sites need to be involved in the discussion.
> 
> The list of criteria needs some debate in the WG. For example, there is
> no check whether IPv6-only clients would be satisfied. So as it stands,
> an ISP could get a green light according to this draft, but its IPv6-only
> users couldn't get SMTP service (for example). On the other hand, for
> practical reasons, there should not be too many criteria.

This kind of discussion is exactly what I wanted to have at Maastricht.
To what extent, would and ISP need to cover for their service to be
called a "working IPv6 ISP"? SMTP? DNS caches? Would a single home
tunnel transited ISP be equally considered IPv6?  For example,
some ISPs can choose to provide SMTP via IPv4 only but their MX must be
dual stacked for their users to communicate with the global internet.

> There's no security text. There needs to be something if this is to proceed
> as an RFC. We could discuss whether any security-related criteria should
> be added; if not, we need to say why not.
> 
> The draft is short enough that there's no point in a section-by-section
> review. There are a few places where the RFC Editor would need to tidy up
> the English.

I agree with these comments.
Thanks.

Regards,
Seiichi


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iEYEARECAAYFAkxGXgIACgkQcrhTYfxyMkI/KgCgjBZm2aI0uc70looZgBYbOpcR
VyAAn0GrVKT30UBT58ZtVpGPfIioGiml
=htBa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----