Subject: RE: spending time on analysis [Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item]

From: Senthil Sivakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:31:52 -0800

At 11:44 AM 11/15/2003 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> > > Then, let's have ISATAP as a WG item; it's been around for three
> > > years and there is nothing premature about that. (Better yet would
> > > be to just go ahead and publish it NOW.)
> >
> > We don't yet know whether we need ISATAP.
>
>Correction. We very well know we do. In fact, we know it so much that
>there is actual deployment at many sites, and interoperable
>implementations by several vendors. You can only write that "we don't
>know" if you define knowledge in the very narrow sense of "we do not
>have a requirement document that explains why we absolutely cannot do
>without it."

This is true for almost all of the proposed transition mechanisms. There are
implementations and deployments.

>The example of ISATAP is quite telling. It would be very easy to write a
>simple 2 paragraph document explaining how ISATAP can be used to provide
>IPv6 connectivity in an enterprise network as an overlay over the
>existing IPv4 infrastructure. We may not unanimously approve that this
>is needed, but we should never require unanimity in such cases. If there
>is a substantial constituency that approves the requirement, the IETF
>tradition is to acknowledge that the requirement exists.

The WG is taking second and third looks on the transition mechanisms
proposed and as I see there is a process of elimination going on.. By the
time this WG is done, there would not be any more transition mechanisms
and we would have to start from scratch..

>I would propose one simple way to meet the "describe your scenario"
>requirement: ask anyone who proposes a transition technology to include
>in the draft a two paragraph description of what scenario the proposal
>is supposed to facilitate. The WG should then verify that there is some
>demand for the scenario, but should not require unanimity or even "rough
>consensus": just because someone believes I don't need something does

Not seeking even rough consensus is a bad idea. It would lead to anyone
developing anything that they want with the blessings of IETF and that is bad
for the IETF and the industry. It does not have to be a unanimous decision but
at least a rough consensus should be sought.

Senthil

>not change my need for it. The role of the working group should be peer
>review: make sure that the proposal is well engineered and meets it
>stated requirement without causing harm.
>
>We must break the current analysis/paralysis.
>
>-- Christian Huitema

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:02:59 -0800

I do agree with many points in the Christian's e-mail and I do think that 
the WG should give a green line to ISATAP, DSTM, Teredo and Proto-41 
before it is hopelessly late. This could happen in parallel with the analysis and scenarios work which is highly valuable as well. 

Mariana
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mariana Nikolova 
Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven (IST/SwA/DS)
Prof. Holstlaan 4, 5656 AA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
room: WDC 1.35,     phone: +31-40-27-45455
e-mail: [email-masked] 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------