Subject: Next steps

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:00:47 +0100

Hi Jonne, Pekka,

I've requested, several times, in the last couple of days, to get the
information about any proposal that you have for the WG.

I will much prefer if you can provide any inputs, and we all discuss about
it.

No reply means to me that you don't have any proposal (as nothing should be
secret and openly discussed as you already indicated !), so anyone with some
ideas should start it, otherwise, we are missing precious time in the next
meeting.

Please, let me know urgently.

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************
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: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:33:15 -0500

Okay, I'll bite!!!  :-)

Speaking only as an interested individual and long term ngtrans/v6ops 
participant...

I would like to see the v6ops finish up the scenario/analysis 
documents and start focusing on some of the important IPv6 
operational issues that should (IMO) be the province of this WG.

For instance, I think that we could do some valuable work studying 
the security implications of running a dual-stack enterprise network 
and documenting some operational best practices for that type of 
deployment.

I'd also like to see us engage some the early IPv6 ISP-type operators 
(Japanese ISPs, the 6Net folks, Internet 2, etc.) and discuss their 
experiences, particularly an operational problems that they have 
experienced.

Margaret

At 9:00 PM +0100 11/3/04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>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: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:44:05 +0200

Everybody,

I agree with Margaret and I think this has been mainly in line with the
direction of the WG: I believe we should finish the scenarios/analysis
work ASAP and if there is need to do specification work, move the work
to the Internet area. V6ops should refocus on the actual operational
issues.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:01:24 +0100

Hi Margaret,

Agree with your comments (for example your point about security is section 4
of the charter), in general, but reading the charter I still don't think
there is any place where is said that we should have proceed in serial-mode.
Should we appeal that decision ? May be I'm wrong, so somebody can provide a
prove that this has been approved by the WG ?

Same with the rationale being followed to decide (by the WG) that no more
documents are accepted as WG items, and then some are now accepted and not
some others. Again, appeal ?

By the way, we the "Euro6IX" folks (including the 8 bigger European Telcos),
have proposed several documents, including operational security implications
of IPv6. This is fully within the charter, and is being ignored as a WG
item. Again, should we appeal ?

Also the same folks proposed some works regarding operational transition
issues, like the auto-discovery of the TEP. This work was even backed-up by
the request of the chairs. Still not even suggested to be WG item, so I ask
now for it. If nobody objects in 2 days, as has been done with the other
documents, clearly is accepted. Right ? Fair enough ?

Now, looking at the charter
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html):

1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
  operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
  determine solutions or workarounds to those issues.  This includes
  identifying standards work that is needed in other IETF WGs or
  areas and working with those groups/areas to begin appropriate
  work.  These issues will be documented in Informational or BCP
  RFCs, or in Internet-Drafts.

-> Some (not to say all) of the stalled work (the one not being accepted as
WG item), is within this section. This is clearly the case for the
transitions related documents and also for those related to security.

-> Furthermore, the same is supported by:

6. Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment
  scenarios documented in (5) and fully document those open
  issues in Internet-Drafts or Informational RFCs.  Work to find
  workarounds or solutions to basic, IP-level operational
  or security issues that can be solved using widely-applicable
  transition mechanisms, such as dual-stack, tunneling or
  translation.

-> Now can tell me, where it says something about the serial-mode ? If not,
please demonstrate that the decision is done by the WG and is fair. Same for
why only a few documents are being proposed as WG items ?

So in my opinion, what we should do (in PARALLEL mode whenever possible):

1) Correct the previous mistakes with decisions that aren't backed up by the
WG, even appeal them if required (this includes serial-mode work and unfair
acceptance of WG items).

2) Continue with the scenarios/analysis.

3) Continue with the operational issues regarding facilitating the
transition. Some already identified and with live documents. Others may need
new work. Do we have the adequate transition mechanisms to cover all the
scenario/analysis ?, what about 6in6, 6in4, 6inudp, others ? What about the
solutions (protocols, new/existing, changes to existing) for zeroconf in
3GPP, or in other networks ?

4) Continue with the operational issues regarding IPv6 security
implications, of both only IPv6 and IPv4/IPv6 networks. This may still need
some more work, some new documents, etc., as those existing may be not
enough.

5) Continue with whatever other operational issues may be required to work
on. Somebody can point out to some specific issues here ?

6) Is the applications work completed (not an expert here). Somebody feel
something else is missing ?

7) Anything missing regarding DNS operation ? SMTP, SIP, other protocols ?

8) Should any of the operational issues fall into the scope of another area
or WG for developing a new standard ? Or are we just describing the issues
and providing guidelines of how existing protocols can solve it ?

We will need probably to define concrete milestones, I guess may need
re-chartering with the consensus of the WG. And if something is not clearly
defined in the actual WG charter (for example if the interpretation of the
charter is not the same for the WG, overall), then we also need to
re-charter.

My position is that if we made a mistake with the charter, and we ignored it
so much time, now, we can't reject work because that, unless there is a WG
general consensus and no objections.

Probably I'm missing a lot of extra issues, possibilities, and so on, so
let's hope the rest of the WG can speak up !

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: [email-masked]
> Fecha: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:33:15 -0500
> Para: [email-masked], Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>, "Soininen
> Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Next steps
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll bite!!!  :-)
>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:01:14 +0100

Well, what I expected is a document or at least an email explaining this:

Discussion of the way forward - 15 mins, Chairs/ADs
  - GOAL: discuss and get consensus on how to proceed from here

The AD indicated that he asked for this, so I guess we should have "some"
document that at a minimum introduce the topic, options, etc. !

Can we see it ? Just an email will make it. Otherwise, we may need to spend
the complete meeting understanding that before taking a decision ? Don't
tell us later "no more mic" ! It will not be fair, and sure will be
appealed, believe me.

Moreover, remember that some people may be not in the meeting room, and they
have the right to know about this. Explain it now, is the best way to get
their inputs.

Thanks in advance for doing so !

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:44:05 +0200
> Para: ext Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked], ext Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>,
> [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: Next steps
> 
> Everybody,
>

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:24:04 -0800

Jordi,

> document that at a minimum introduce the topic, options, etc. !

I think I already explained this to you:

We would like to discuss how to proceed from where we are, now that
most of our major milestones are accomplished.

It is up to the community/working group to form a consensus view
onwhere we want to go from here.

Margaret & Jonne already gave their views. Not speaking as an AD, I
like an approach as proposed by Margaret and supported by Jonne.

Speaking as an AD, the part of the title of the agenda topic that says
'get consensus' was perhaps not the best choice of words. I would like
to use the time to bootstrap the discussion on what is next and get
some sense of the room for which directions make sense.

David Kessens
---

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 22:51:00 -0500

Hi Jordi,

>there is any place where is said that we should have proceed in serial-mode.

I wrote the original charter for this WG, and he intention at the 
time was not to proceed in serial mode.

We were supposed to work on the scenarios/analysis before continuing 
work on the coexistence/transition mechanisms, but the operational 
work was intended to happen in parallel.  At least during the time 
that I was chairing the group, we did get some ISP/operator feedback 
and do some work on operational work.  We also continued working on 
the documents that summarized v6 work needed in various areas, 
provided advice to several areas that did lead to some important work 
and published them.

However, it was always a challenge (before and after the ngtrans -> 
v6ops transition) to get this particular WG actively engaged in the 
work of the group.

I think that many of the efforts you have mentioned would be good 
efforts for this group to undertake.

Margaret

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:37:19 +0200 (EET)

> prove that this has been approved by the WG ?

It is the responsibility of the chairs and ADs to ensure that works 
gets done, and gets done with sufficient expertise and wide review 
(also outside of the WG).

Doing everything in parallel would not be possible.  It is certainly 
possible to do *something* in parallel (and so we have).

> some others. Again, appeal ?

See above.

> item. Again, should we appeal ?

The fact that something is listed in the WG charter does not mean that 
WG participants must be interested on a proposed work item.

For work items we take, there must be sufficient expertise and 
interest, and energy to work on such items.

> documents, clearly is accepted. Right ? Fair enough ?

I would personally object so you have at least one ;-).  I have very 
little against taking draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc as WG item, 
except timing (it'll be needed only soon, when designing the 
solutions).

> why only a few documents are being proposed as WG items ?

To get something done in a finite time, with sufficient expertise :-).

See my different mail on more.

> 7) Anything missing regarding DNS operation ? SMTP, SIP, other protocols ?

DNS, SMTP and SIP are done or under progress in dnsop, sip WG(s), and 
individual submission by itojun.

-- 
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: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:23:17 +0100

Hi David,

As in IETF everything is done via I-Ds, it will be much better to have
"something", to detail a little bit some options about how to proceed.
Propose several directions, may be, etc. Basically speaking-up now instead
of just waiting for the mic, so the people can start thinking and providing
inputs, which we all know is already difficult.

You don't think so ?

Regards,
Jordi

> De: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:24:04 -0800
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: Next steps
> 
> 
> Jordi,
>

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:06:27 +0000

> and documenting some operational best practices for that type of 

I think this is a very important one.  It's something we're doing very
actively at my site, looking at firewalling, IDS, transition and many other
aspects.   We have IPv6 pervasively on the wire, and many services enabled,
and issues do frequently get thrown up.   It's a big area, indeed you could
argue that IPv6 Enterprise transition could be a WG of its own(!) with 
everything there is to cover.  

It's also important to push out what we can to existing WGs to get v6 
considered (not to the point of a "IPv6 Considerations" in every I-D of 
course) but the wider the coverage the better we're placed, I feel.
 
> experiences, particularly an operational problems that they have 

So what specifically do you want to know?   In the case of 6NET it has
8 months to run, and thus any guidance for documentation would be welcome,
beit from the NREN/ISP perspective or the university/enterprise.  What do
you want to see?

Tim