Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience WGLC

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:00:02 -0800

This is to initiate a two week working group last call of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.

We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.

---

From: Ray Hunter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:35:51 +0100

I have read this draft, and I don't particularly see in its current form
how it significantly advances our knowledge of operational experience of
NAT64 in a way that could be applied by other operators.

When I compare it something like rfc3974 rfc5037 or rfc6586 I don't see
any detail of what was tested, tips or lists of features that worked as
expected, gotchas, common pitfalls to be avoided, configuration
information, additional algorithms, or open issues that the IETF or
manufacturers still need to address.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:41:24 +0900

> I have read this draft, and I don't particularly see in its current
> form how it significantly advances our knowledge of operational
> experience of NAT64 in a way that could be applied by other operators.

marketing department of damaged operator will like it.

but i doubt it is worth the fight over this one.  those who drink the
koolaid will continue to do so, and the others not.  as it adds no new
value or information, it will not influence their decisions.

randy

---

From: GangChen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:40:26 +0800

Hello Ray,

> manufacturers still need to address.

What have been documented in the current draft is coming from several
operators. That may slightly different from documenting experiences of
particular testing.  We may have different
practices/experiments/configuration data, but have common
understanding on NAT64 deployment. Therefore, the draft promotes
specific behavior into the generalized statements/recommendations.

This was clarified during past discussions
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg14678.html. We
have changed the title to "NAT64 Deployment Considerations" in order
to echo this point.

Best Regards

Gang

>
> Fred Baker wrote:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience. Please read
>> it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording
>> changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as
>> disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be
>> addressed, please post your comments to the list.
>>
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document
>> as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be
>> of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: GangChen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:42:25 +0800

Hello Randy,

> value or information, it will not influence their decisions.

The goal of the document intents to include current NAT64 practices in
a whole picture.
I can't speak whether the document could influence other operator's decisions.
Whereas, I have communicated with several ICP/ISPs on the
considerations of current draft.
They think it's easy for them to get information from a document to
say what's should be aware/care, what's potential impacts if they
decide to adopt NAT64
Their position quite conforms with the statement and believe those
experiences worth to be documented to be informational for other
operators serve as common understanding.
The document is trying to consolidate those understanding systematically

Best Regards

Gang