|
Hi,
Creation of a working group is subject to the conditions of
RFC 2418 section 2.1 and is the responsibility of the
IESG. The participants
are responsible for satisfying the conditions of 2.1.
2.1. Criteria for
formation When
determining whether it is appropriate to create a working group,
the Area Director(s) and the IESG will consider several
issues:
- Are the issues that the working group plans
to address clear and
relevant to the Internet
community?
- Are the goals specific and reasonably
achievable, and achievable
within a reasonable
time frame?
- What are the risks and urgency of the
work, to determine the level
of effort
required?
- Do the working group's activities overlap
with those of another
working group? If
so, it may still be appropriate to create the
working group, but this question must be considered carefully
by
the Area Directors as subdividing efforts
often dilutes the
available technical
expertise.
- Is there sufficient interest within the
IETF in the working
group's topic with enough
people willing to expend the effort to
produce
the desired result (e.g., a protocol
specification)?
Working groups require
considerable effort, including management
of
the working group process, editing of working group
documents,
and contributing to the document
text. IETF experience suggests
that
these roles typically cannot all be handled by one person;
a
minimum of four or five active participants
in the management
positions are typically
required in addition to a minimum of one
or
two dozen people that will attend the working group
meetings
and contribute on the mailing
list. NOTE: The interest must be
broad
enough that a working group would not be seen as merely
the
activity of a single
vendor.
- Is there enough expertise within the IETF in
the working group's
topic, and are those
people interested in contributing in the
working group?
- Does a base of interested consumers
(end-users) appear to exist
for the planned
work? Consumer interest can be measured
by
participation of end-users within the IETF
process, as well as by
less direct
means.
- Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play
in the determination
of the technology?
There are many Internet-related technologies
that may be interesting to IETF members but in some cases the
IETF
may not be in a position to effect the
course of the technology in
the "real
world". This can happen, for example, if the
technology
is being developed by another
standards body or an industry
consortium.
- Are all known intellectual property
rights relevant to the
proposed working
group's efforts issues understood?
- Is the proposed
work plan an open IETF effort or is it an
attempt
to "bless" non-IETF technology where
the effect of input from IETF
participants may
be limited?
- Is there a good understanding of any
existing work that is
relevant to the topics
that the proposed working group is to
pursue? This includes work within the IETF and
elsewhere.
- Do the working group's goals overlap with
known work in another
standards body, and if
so is adequate liaison in place?
Considering the above
criteria, the Area Director(s), using his or
her best judgment,
will decide whether to pursue the formation of
the group through
the chartering process.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 4:34
PM
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Some
opinions about establish a new WG
Hi all,
I totally agree with Cancan opinion. In ISP's point of view, there are so
many problems we need to handle when transitioning v4 to v6, and some of these
problems may be not "very" technical, like how to do IPv6 address planning and
what elements should be considered, or in the case of China Telecom's network,
which technics should be selected to deploy to CT's network and what
elements should be considered, etc.
I think the answers for these problems are very valuable for other ISPs,
and worth our discussion.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:46 PM, huang cancan <cancanhuang110@gmail.com> wrote:
hi, folks:
As a person who have worked in telecom operator for
many years, I do appreciate the thousands of rfcs the IETF provide us and
they do help us a lot when we deploy technologies in our network.
However, I am here to argue that is very necessary to establish a new WG
which is really focus on the operator's need and solve our problems.
At first, I want to make it
clear that what is the operator really need when they starting v4
to v6 transition. Why I emphasize the topic of v6 transition is because
this item is quite different from any other projects. It is just like
to establish a new Internet world!!! It is definitely a huge
systematic work other than how to deploy DS-lite in the network. When we
start this project, we first have to show our boss the
migration strategies and paths, tell him what will happen at what time and
what we can do to solve that problems step by step. When we start to do a
thing we need a road map, isn't it? So, the real requirement of a
operator to start his tour on IPv6 transition is to work out the strategies.
And this is what 6ops cannot provide us because they say it is our
own business problem. However, hey, the business problem is the
foremost problem, isn't it? Without solve this problem, we even cannot start
our tour~~~ The evidence is as below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How to decide the scale of the IPv6 address space we
need? For example, China telecom will have 100+ millions subscribers in the
next 3 years, and M2M service will come soon, so we should apply for /24 or
shorter?
Since IPv6 address space is large,
you can start with a longer prefix and grow. If the APNIC’s policy allows
you to get a /24, you can ask for it.
What kind of address
allocation schemes should be deployed in enterprise networks? Provider
aggregatable address, provider independent address or local address? If PA
address, how to avoid renumbering when the enterprise network change site or
provider? If PI address, how to reduce routing table? If local address, how
to make sure all of the computers can access internet, NAT66 is a good
choice or not?
I think this is more like
a business decision than technology decision. An ISP can definitely offer
service to give enterprises an IP prefix from its own aggregate. However,
some enterprise won’t like it because of the renumber problem you mentioned
by switching provider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it is not the answer
we need. What we need is what length of prefix we should apply, which is
appropriate for us. You cannot suggest every operator that them can
start a longer prefix...... What we need is: is there any model or
formula to calculate the prefix length that we need or address architecture
planning with the considerations of the subscriber scale and increase rate?
And how can operators to utilize the address bits before /56 and after /56
to distinguish different type of service or different metropolitan area
network in order to optimize the routing or management.
You may said it
is our own business problem,depend which one we like...... I do believe this
answer can not solve the operator's problem. If 6ops continues gave us
that answer, I don't believe the final guideline 6ops provide us will meet
our requirements.
If the so called
business problem,which is the most important factor to make a
strategy, is not concerned by 6ops, can we gather some people working
in the operator who is interest about that to discuss our business problem
in another WG, in which business problem will not be
ignored?
Can-can Huang
_______________________________________________
v4tov6transition
mailing list
v4tov6transition@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
_______________________________________________
v4tov6transition
mailing
list
v4tov6transition@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
|