Re: [edu-team] IETF 99 Tutorial Survey Results

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 24, 2017, at 12:36 AM, Mirjam Kuehne <[e-mail]> wrote:
> They don't need to read out the charter, but could give a high-level
> overview of the main goal and topics (pretty much what Alexa suggested
> below).

I don't see the difference between that and the charter. Let me fill out what I mean. I'll use my working group's charter - https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/about/.

> The goals of the v6ops working group are:
> 
> 1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
> operational issues with IPv6 networks, and determine solutions or
> workarounds to those issues.
> 
> 2. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
> operational interaction issues with the IPv4 networks, and determine
> solutions or workarounds to those issues.
> 
> 3. Solicit discussion and documentation of the issues and opportunities
> in IPv6-only operation, and of the resulting innovations.
> 
> 4. Operational solutions for identified issues should be developed in
> v6ops and documented in informational or BCP drafts.
> 
> 5. Document operational requirements for IPv6 networks.
> 
> These documents should document IPv6 operational experience, including
> interactions with IPv4, in dual stack networks, IPv6 networks with IPv4
> delivered as an overlay or translation service, or IPv6-only networks.


If I were to make a video about v6ops, I would discuss conversions among operators or operators&vendors about issues in their IPv6 networks. These would cover issues in IPv6 networks, interactions with IPv4 networks and services, operational requirements for IPv6 networks, and the current trend (on the part of some thought leaders) toward shutting down IPv4. No, I don't think I would read the charter off the screen, but - what is v6ops talking about? It's talking about the things it is chartered to talk about, and when it's not, we either change the charter or move the thread.

By the way, that current trend is not far from the minds of a lot of other people. I'm in the process of deploying IPv6 for New Tribes Mission, and asked about their various services in Rackspace and Azure. I have been very careful to characterize this as "adding IPv6 to their existing network", but the explanation my counterpart made to another guy this morning was about "moving to IPv6", e.g., shutting down IPv4. The only reason someone that deploys IPv6 *doesn't* shut down IPv4 is that they are concerned about a negative operational interaction of some kind - an application that will stop working, a host or network device that will be prevented from doing its job, an expectation (often related to security) that would no longer be met, or whatever. That rubber/road interaction has been central to v6ops for quite some time now, although the exact viewpoint has changed over time.

Cullen's video is about that. He is talking about Web RTC services and the work in the WebRTC WG supporting it. He doesn't list all of the points in https://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/charters?item=charter-rtcweb-2017-03-30.txt; it's more of a marketing pitch. But it is the list of topics in his charter, at a slightly higher level.