Subject: Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:54:44 -0500

Hi Allison.

> Pro:

> I like that Thomas add the Y1541 NSIS document to the NSIS list;
> seems like good diplomacy.

I can't take credit for this -- the document was already mentioned in
the version I responded to. :-)

> > > In addition to this effort, other technologies in the IETF support
> > > some form of multihoming, most notably HIP, which is an experimental
> > > protocol with many similarities to shim6, and SCTP. The reason SCTP
> > > was not chosen as a generic approach to multihoming was that it
> > > assumes SCTP as the transport layer protocol.
> > 
> > Drop the above.

> I disagree, though perhaps Thomas is reacting to the lack of reference
> to IPv6 in the paragraph.  ITU NGN has many proposals which apply
> SCTP broadly, and I believe it's worth our stating that we think
> this is not appropriate.

Part of what is bugging me here is that we are responding to a very
vague and open request for some sort of information from ITU-T. I
don't know what their hot buttons are and what we need to be
commenting on. So, my starting point was to take a relatively narrow
reading of their request and try to not provide info on stuff they
didn't ask about. Otherwise, where does it end? Besides, we want them
to come to us with _specific_ questions.

And, BTW, if ITU-T thinks they should base NGN on SCTP, well, I'm
tempted to say: let them. :-)

(BTW, I don't feel strongly about pulling the above out. But shouldn't
the comment on SCTP fall out of some of the existing documents we
point them to, and in more detail?)

Thomas

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 11:21:42 -0500

> to come to us with _specific_ questions.

It ends where we take it.  One alternative is we are administrative
clerks from a "protocol shop" and provide information as requested on
form 7.  Another is that this is one step toward having the IETF seen
as the clear leader on vision and strategy.  There are lots of
possible endings, depending on where you want it to go.  I suggest
choosing the ultimate goal, and making sure the liaison is a step in
that direction.

As for what they are asking, I interpreted them in previous mail,
which I can dig up if you need it.

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 18:50:42 +0200

Hi,

I agree with Scott that we don't really have to wait for _exact_
questions before providing them an answer. I think providing them a
bigger answer to them that they in paper asked for is just ok.

However, I would be careful to distinguish the work that is already done
in the IETF (RFCs), in WGs, just started, and what somebody has deployed
in the Internet based on IETF protocols. I think IETF's role is to
describe what is done and what has consensus at least as a direction.
More forward than that can be just commented that IETF is working on it
(with no current consensus on details).

Cheers,

Jonne.