Subject: Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:09:52 +0100

> I do not think it clearly falls within the charter of the WG. 

Well, indeed the charter allows for highly subjective interpretation ...., 
but nevertheless charter item 1 fits very well. 

>The only clear possibility I see is charter item (6), but that would not 
be
>acceptable until the analysis/scenarios work is complete and a clear need
>has been identified.

During the plenary there was a clear indication from the WG members that 
the group spends too much time on analysis/scenarios/aspects and this 
process has to be speeded up. I do hope this will happen.
Furthermore, IPv6 comes to commercial deployment and needs well defined 
transition mechanisms (which makes the scenarios feasible) and alternative 
paths. proto-41 is one of them (in addition to some others) and there is 
no much time to wait ..... 

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] 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 18:24:55 +0200 (EET)

> process has to be speeded up. I do hope this will happen.

On the contrary, the WG spends too *little* time on analysis work, which 
is the reason for all the perceived problems of timeliness.

Our problem is that only few seem to care about it at all, just complain
that we aren't doing transition mechanisms and other stuff to suit the
market windows.  That's not going to happen until we're done.

If everyone pitched in in the final rush for the analysis/scenarios work, 
we might actually be done soon!  I certainly see a hope of progress in the 
short term, but then again, we need more input to the work!

This was probably said already two years ago, but folks didn't take it 
seriously, so you see the effect..

Please, *DO* participate in the analysis/scenarios effort!

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:00:00 -0600

Pekka,

While I agree in the importance of the analysis word, and I try to spend some of my time on it, there is nothing in the charter that doesn't allow to continue other works in parallel, that doesn't define new transition mechanism. By the way, I'm still waiting your reply on this to my previous email.

Not allowing the WG to work on what they feel is interesting, is definitively mining the WG effort, and avoiding the progress.

Most of the WG participants are in the REAL market, and we know what is going there, and we know that if IETF doesn't do the work soon, we will have non-IETF solutions, what clearly is much worst.

We need to be much more flexible in the process and allow for some parallel work. Obviously it could mean that some of the documents couldn't go to last call. FINE ! Hopefully we will have a bunch of things to go to last call together in a few months.

PLEASE, do allow and facilitate the pro-activity and democracy of the WG, and if needed allow the WG to interpret the charter instead of mandating what you or the AD or the IESG or whoever feels is correct, while the WG doesn't believe in it. Otherwise, this will not longer be a WG, just a bunch of people willing to work outside of IETF.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:24 AM
Subject: spending time on analysis [Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item]

> Please, *DO* participate in the analysis/scenarios effort!

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:01:56 +0900 (JST)

> Please, *DO* participate in the analysis/scenarios effort!

	one thing i'm observing about analysis/scenarios effort is that,
	there are so many configuration option for IPv4 network (for instance,
	if there are 100 ISPs there will be 100, or more!, different network
	designs, all with good reasons).  so i'm now not sure if we can really
	generalize those various configuration into 4 analysis/scenario domains.

	thererefore, i'm thinking of submitting a draft which describes what
	we (IIJ, AS2497) did to deploy IPv6 backbone as well as IPv6 services.

	before start writing stuff up, my question is:
	- does it sound useful?
	- doesn't it jeopadize ISP analysis/scenario effort, or is it okay to
	  have generalized analysis/scneario doc and specific-ISP doc in
	  parallel?
	- if it is useful, can other ISP/enterprise/whatever do the similar
	  thing?

	NOTE: i'm on ISP scenario group.  i'm not very active in the group
	though (sorry).

itojun

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:09:52 +0000

> 	before start writing stuff up, my question is:

Yes, we had such a draft presented this week.  Another would not hurt.

> 	  have generalized analysis/scneario doc and specific-ISP doc in

I think it is good to have.

> 	- if it is useful, can other ISP/enterprise/whatever do the similar

I don't see why not.  Where the draft ended up in the process is a different
question (it would be a personal draft for reference only, I assume), but
the dissemination would be very useful.
 
Tim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:18:19 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
[...]
> the dissemination would be very useful.

FWIW, I agree with Tim's points.  A draft would likely help us focus the 
generic document better as well.  Of course, it might never actully even 
end up being published, but its goal would probably be fulfilled by 
discussion only.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:31:39 +0200 (EET)

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> While I agree in the importance of the analysis word, and I try to spend
> some of my time on it, there is nothing in the charter that doesn't
> allow to continue other works in parallel, that doesn't define new
> transition mechanism. By the way, I'm still waiting your reply on this
> to my previous email.

Charter item (6) says:

  Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment
  scenarios documented in (5) [...]

And item (5):

5. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs [...]

... a draft does not fulfill that criteria.  IESG approval on  document 
probably would be interpreted to be it.  Working group last call with no 
issues raised is  stretch but could maybe be considered, but anything 
prior to that would be clearly premature.

Of course, it's OK to work on the subjects in parallel, maybe even using 
the mailing list if it's nonintrusive, but one should definitely not 
expect them to become official WG items prematurely.

> Not allowing the WG to work on what they feel is interesting, is
> definitively mining the WG effort, and avoiding the progress.

News: that's how chartering works. Basically, the WG is chartered to do 
certain specific things, not whatever the general WG populace thinks is 
interesting.

> PLEASE, do allow and facilitate the pro-activity and democracy of the
> WG, and if needed allow the WG to interpret the charter instead of
> mandating what you or the AD or the IESG or whoever feels is correct,
> while the WG doesn't believe in it. Otherwise, this will not longer be a
> WG, just a bunch of people willing to work outside of IETF.

The WG does not set the charter.  I fail to see why you even *consider* 
that the WG would have the authority to interpret it?

Sure, if WG feels something is in charter, that's fine.  But that still 
doesn't mean *anything*.  The same works the other way as well.

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:43:19 -0800

>expect them to become official WG items prematurely.

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.)

I want ISATAP as a work of the IETF as it should be so that we
can declare success together. Let's get on board with the new
technology before the real world passes us by.

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:30:39 -0600

Pekka,

Why you keep going with 5 and 6 if 1 is clear ?

You insist in the charter, and I'm reading the charter, starting with 1 ...

Anyway, at the moment I see more positive feedback to get this item as a WG item than negative one ... so lets don't keep with this non-endless discussion, and wait for some more replies to see what the WG consensus is.

Regards,
Jordi

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:52:08 +0200 (EET)

> > transition mechanism. By the way, I'm still waiting your reply on this

and I responded.

> You insist in the charter, and I'm reading the charter, starting with 1 ...

At least without major modifications, I do not see this draft to belong 
under 1).

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:56:14 +0200 (EET)

> be to just go ahead and publish it NOW.)

We don't yet know whether we need ISATAP.

We don't yet know where we would need ISATAP, if we needed it.  Thus, if
we took it up, we would not know where to develop it.

I.e., there should not be a tool without clear purpose.

Therefore starting to work on ISATAP would be premature, even though it 
has been under individual specification for a long time now.

We just have to know where and how to use the mechanisms before getting
down the path of working on them.

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:10:34 -0600

> At least without major modifications, I do not see this draft to belong 

Based on what ? Quite a subjective observation, and I think is quite wrong for a chair to take a subjective position.

---

From: Jasminko Mulahusic <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:04:46 +0100

itojun,

> 	- if it is useful, can other ISP/enterprise/whatever do the similar

yes, that would be very useful. my question is: can your work somehow be 
combined as an example within the existing scenarios/solutions draft 
that the isp design team is working on?

hopefully, what you have done will agree with what the team proposes and 
if that would not be the case, it would be interesting to see why/how 
theory and practice differ.

jasminko