Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-05.txt to Informational

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 00:05:07 -0400

v6ops begs your indulgence to send this document off in an  
Informational status.

> 1.a) Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the  
> Internet Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID is  
> ready to forward to the IESG for publication?  Which chair is the  
> WG Chair Shepherd for this document?

Yes, I believe that it is ready for publication. I will be the proto- 
shepherd.

> 1.b) Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members  
> and key non-WG members?  Do you have any concerns about the depth  
> or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

This document has had significant and at times contentious review in  
the working group. I believe that the recommendations it makes are  
sound and have been accepted by the working group.

> 1.c) Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from  
> a particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational  
> complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, XML,  
> etc.)?

I could imagine interest in the Internet area. It is essentially  
operational, so issues that the security area or others might come up  
with are more comments on IPv6 than they are on these points.

> 1.d) Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document  
> that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of?  For  
> example, perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the  
> document, or have concerns whether there really is a need for it.   
> In any event, if your issues have been discussed in the WG and the  
> WG has indicated it that it still wishes to advance the document,  
> detail those concerns in the write-up

There has been significant discussion in the WG regarding the  
document. At this point, I believe that the document is appropriate  
and makes appropriate statements.

> 1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it  
> represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others  
> being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

One could describe v6ops as a set of groups of people intimately  
worried about specific topics among a crowd of people who mostly want  
to stay in touch with what happens. As such, it is a pretty quiet  
group. However, consensus exists behind this document to the extent  
it can be measured.

> 1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme  
> discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in  
> separate email to the Responsible Area Director.  (It should be  
> separate email because this questionnaire will be entered into the  
> tracker).

not to my knowledge.

> 1.g) Have the chairs verified that the document checks out against  
> all the ID nits? (see http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html).  
> Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

Yes.

> 1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and  
> informative?

Yes.

> Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are not also  
> ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?

There are several references to internet drafts. All are non-normative.

> The RFC Editor will not publish an RFC with normative references to  
> IDs (will delay the publication until all such IDs are also ready  
> for RFC publicatioin).  If the normative references are behind,  
> what is the strategy for their completion?  On a related matter,  
> are there normative references that are downward references, as  
> described in BCP 97, RFC 3967 RFC 3967 [RFC3967]?  Listing these  
> supports the Area Director in the Last Call downref procedure  
> specified in RFC 3967.

This has been addressed.

> 1.i) For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval  
> announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:
>
> *    Technical Summary

This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise  
networks.  These networks are characterized as a network that has  
multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or  
more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity.  The  
analysis focuses on a base set of transition notational networks and  
requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios document.  
Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition analysis  
required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6, assuming a Dual-IP  
layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node environment, within the  
enterprise.  Then a set of transition mechanisms are recommended for  
each notational network.

> *    Working Group Summary

This has been discussed in detail in the working group.

> *    Protocol Quality

This does not specify a protocol.