Subject: Re: WG Review: IPv6 Operations (v6ops)

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:58:54 +0300 (EEST)

Comments are for new additions since the draft charter.

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Steve Coya wrote:
> The v6ops working group will:
> (1) Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
>     operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
>     determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. This includes
>     identifying standards work that is needed in other IETF WGs or
>     areas and working with those groups/areas to begin appropriate   
>     work. These issues will be documented in Informational or BCP  
>     RFCs, or in Internet-Drafts.
>
>     Critical pieces of the Internet infrastructures such as DNS, SMTP
>     and SIP have specific operational issues when they operate in a
>     shared IPv4/IPv6 network. The v6ops WG will cooperate with the
>     relevant areas and WGs to document those issues, and find
>     protocol or operational solutions to those problems.

Since when did SIP become a critical piece of Internet architecture?

I'm not saying it isn't important (more so in the future), but I think
this is a major example of something that should be solely done in other
w.g.'s (if they aren't interested, why should we be?).  Is it clear enough
that v6ops will only give (minor) consultancy as necessary, not more?

And what of e.g. SMTP as the working group has concluded?  Is it expected
that working group be reformed to address the IPv6 concerns or documents
be pushed as personal submissions?  Note that there may be a huge
temptation to just do the work at v6ops (which was not intended) if this
happens to be the case.

> (7) Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment
>     solutions documented in (5) and fully document those open
>     issues in Internet-Drafts or Informational RFCs. Work to find
>     workarounds or solutions to basic, IP-level deployment issues
>     that can be solved using widely-applicable transition mechanisms,
>     such as dual-stack, tunneling or translation.
>     
>     If the satisfactory resolution of a deployment issue requires
>     the standardization of a new, widely-applicable transition
>     mechanism that does not properly fit into any other IETF WG or
>     area, the v6ops WG will standardize a transition mechanism
>     to meet that need.

The second paragraph has been reworded, and could be used as a loophole to
do, well, quite a lot :-).  Whether this is ok depends on how tight a
charter we want.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords