Subject: [v6tc] v6tc draft charter discussion

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:06:54 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

(If folks don't mind, I'll try to ensure that the process is moving 
forward until WG chair(s) is appointed or someone else steps up..)

Find below the v6tc draft charter which was discussed at the meeting. 
I made two changes at this point:
  - shifted the first milestones forward a bit
  - tried to clarify point 1).  Note that this was just meant to say 
that we would find a "rough approach" how to move forward (L2TP, an 
existing tunnel server protocol, ...) -- not that we decide the actual 
solution (detailed proposal) yet.  Does this make sense?
  - I removed the end-point discovery *solution* documents from the 
input document list, because apparently that was causing confusion, as 
people also wanted all the other solutions on that list.

Comments?  Suggestions? ....?

I think we should try to get the charter in a reasonable shape within 
a week or so.

.....

IPv6 Tunneling Configuration (v6tc) WG
======================================
[...] (On Internet Area)

Description of Working Group:

IPv6 Operations working group has identified and documented
IPv6 transition scenarios where the existing, standardized
solutions are not sufficient.

In particular, the solution for scenarios where an IPv6
connectivity provider is helping the customers to set up a
tunnel needs to be specified.

Work has already started in identifying the precise
goals/requirementsfor the solution.

The action items for the WG are:

  (1) Based on the input documents, gain rough consensus on at most
      *one* to-be-standardized approach to fit these goals.

  (2) Work on two components of the solution:
         a) method to discover the tunnel end-point; and
         b) the specification of the tunnel set-up protocol.

      Publish the results on Standards Track.

  (3) Document the goals and tradeoffs of analysis for 2)
      as Informational RFCs.

Any other tunneling mechanism or any other activity is out of the scope of
this very focused WG.

List of documents to be used as input to the WG:

http://www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/ietf/draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf-reqs-01.txt
draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt
draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01.txt
draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-02.txt

Goals and Milestones:

Nov 2004 Update the documents on goals/tradeoffs
Dec 2004 Gain consensus on the rough approach for the solution
Dec 2004 Get initial individual submissions for solutions
Feb 2005 Submit the solution as WG I-D
Jun 2005 WG last call on the solution document
Aug 2005 Submit the protocol specification to the IESG for Proposed Standard
Aug 2005 Submit the documents on goals/tradeoffs to the IESG
          for Informational RFCs
Sep 2005 Shut down or recharter

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:43:35 -0500

Hi Pekka, all,

I don't mind ... actually I was tempted to start some noise yesterday
already, but I wondered if somebody will complain about me ;-)

In principle I think I agree with your 1st two suggestions, but not sure if
it makes sense removing the solution documents, in the sense that those are
to be used as inputs only. We aren't at this time proposing to take them as
WG items or whatever like that, but just to note that there are some
proposals in the table, that of course, could evolve, depending on the
analysis and requirement documents.

Next week we will try to get an update of
draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-02.txt

It will be nice if the folks can read it and provide any new inputs !

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: [email-masked]
> Fecha: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:06:54 +0200 (EET)
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: [v6tc] v6tc draft charter discussion
> 
> Hi,
> 

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:16:38 +0100

> forward until WG chair(s) is appointed or someone else steps up..)

Pekka, you are already doing a great job for v6ops, and as this WG is a
spin-off and mostly related to v6ops it would be IMHO a good idea to
have the same chairs, so that they can better overview the work.
Of course, if you have the time etc to do it.

<SNIP>
>          b) the specification of the tunnel set-up protocol.

psst, you forget:

c) The specification of the tunneling protocol (when it is a new one)

also I assume with "set-up" you mean "optional negotiation and
configuration".

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:27:01 +0200 (EET)

> analysis and requirement documents.

Those drafts certainly aren't removed from consideration in any way. 
This was just done to recognize that any list which would be shorter 
than about 5 different proposals would be incomplete, and it seems to 
make sense not to call out (only some of) the proposals in the 
charter.

The only use in the charter would be showing that "yes, we've thought 
about the solutions as well".

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:34:24 +0200 (EET)

> Of course, if you have the time etc to do it.

Let's make this straight: I *don't* want to chair this working group 
:).  I'll rather be a technical contributor only.

At this point, I was just trying to make sure that something keeps 
happening with this proposed WG until someone gets the more official 
responsibility to do that..

> c) The specification of the tunneling protocol (when it is a new one)

Hmm. Maybe the charter should use a bit more generic language to make 
it possible to include an encapsulation as well, if that's deemed 
necessary.. without having to call it out explicitly, conditionally as 
you suggested.

> also I assume with "set-up" you mean "optional negotiation and

That may mean negotiation or configuration; that is not a requirement 
for the solution.  Basically b) was meant to mean "how a v6-in-v4[udp] 
is set up at the both endpoints of the tunnel".

That might also include specification or guidance on how to get IPv6 
addresses and possibly other information on top of that link.  Again, 
there are multiple ways to achieve that, so the charter wording should
probably be sufficiently generic.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:08:03 +0000

> necessary.. without having to call it out explicitly, conditionally as 

Sounds fine.

> probably be sufficiently generic.

Ditto.

Tim

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 22:06:28 +0000

> IPv6 Tunneling Configuration (v6tc) WG

I agree with the charter.

> draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-02.txt

There is much overlap in these documents.  I would like to know if you feel
we can converge to 1 or 2 goals/tradeoofs documents, rather than four?
I know 3gpp wants something now, but I still feel this could be achieved
as one subsection of a general text, citing which specific requirements 3gpp
has, rather than a separate doc.   Duplicating and then editing from the
duplicates is likely to lead to inconsistencies, at the very least.
 
> Goals and Milestones:

These do seem optimistic, but we can try :)

-- 
Tim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:20:24 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Tim Chown wrote:
> we can converge to 1 or 2 goals/tradeoofs documents, rather than 
four? [...]

FWIW, I think because we need to update the material in any case, it 
also makes sense to merge the first three.

The key here is to just to avoid putting too much work into the 
documents, trying to make them perfect and waiting for them to 
finalize before starting the real work..