Subject: Work on MPLS and tunneling approaches in scenarios

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 11:48:21 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

(co-chair hat on)

At v6ops meeting on Monday, there seemed to be rough consensus that:

 - IPv6 in MPLS networks work is carried forward, (some objection)
 - "Opportunistic" tunneling work needs to go forward, (minor objection)
 - "Zero-configured" tunneling work needs to go forward. (unanimous)

(Unfortunately, the latter two are a bit fuzzy concepts.)

This is message is sent to verify the rough consensus in the WG.  If
you have objections, please raise them now.

For those not attending, the slides of the presentation are
temporarily available at:

http:/www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/temp/v6ops-mpls.pdf
http:/www.netcore.fi/pekkas/ietf/temp/v6ops-tunneling.pdf

(Sorry, no minutes yet.)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:58:36 +0100

I would suggest that the chairs and ADs think for a few minutes
about whether these items belong in v6ops or in an ad hoc WG
(v6tuns?).

   Brian

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM

---

From: Jasminko Mulahusic <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 01:33:26 +0100 (CET)

> you have objections, please raise them now.

i think we are moving a bit fast here.

following would be a more reasonable way to go:

1/ finish scenario/analysis work.
2/ review the results of that work and see if there are any missing
mechanisms.
3/ document those missing pieces along with their requirements, potential
usage cases, etc.
4/ ask the wg/ad:s how/where to proceed. [and as brian pointed out, maybe
a new wg might be a better place].

now, nobody has said that some of the above cannot be done i parallel, but
doing 4/ without finishing 1/ first seems premature thing to do. imho. why
such a hurry?

jasminko

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 04:12:29 +0200 (EET)

> 3/ document those missing pieces along with their requirements, potential

Actually, the scenarios/analysis work is actually meant to capture all 
of that.  For the specific case of IPv6 over MPLS, I think these have 
been explicitly documented in a lot of detail already.  The others 
may need a bit improvement (which will be done in the revision of the 
documents), but these will elaborated a bit on today's session.  

This will be discussed at a lot of length in the session today.

> doing 4/ without finishing 1/ first seems premature thing to do. imho. why

People have been had to wait (more or less) for about 2 years or so,
and aren't happy.  We must hurry.  The important thing is that the
work gets done, which WG it will be at is secondary -- but that is
being discussed.

The analysis documents are much more useful to the audience if they in 
fact include the analysis.  3 of them are past WG last call already.  
Therefore, I'm quite confident that those can be finished within a 
month or so, and if we manage 

Hope this clarifies.

-- 
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: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:56:25 -0800

The point I was trying to raise at the mic was that we don't need to publish
in parallel with the working group if the working group will simply publish
the documents on the table. There still appears to be a desire to kill these
transition tools. The BS about allowing them to be Experimental is nothing
more than trying to duck the issue. 

I can't get back to the mic...
WE DON'T HAVE TO MEASURE DEPLOYMENT FOR PS !!!!

The mechanisms that solve the identified scenarios all need to be on the
standards track. There is no need for delay and long evaluation.

Tony