Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

I just tried to review this thread, the current document, and the
liaison statements that are prompting our response. I must say, it's a
little bit unclear what ITU-T is asking for, and I'm a little
concerned about the current response and what it says (or more
specifically, how ITU-T will use it and whether the results will be
what the IETF wants).

>From what I was able to figure out, the most relevant liaison
statement is:

Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com> writes:

> For those who might not have seen them, this came out of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=127
> and https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file182.pdf

file182.pdf says:

> At WTSA-04, SG 13 was entrusted a new Question (Q.9/13, Impact of IPv6
> to an NGN) which mainly aims at developing requirements for an NGN
> using IPv6. Because Q.9/13 is in the starting phase of studying the
> use of IPv6 for NGN, the major concerns are currently to define how
> IPv6 can be used in the NGN and what the requirements of IPv6 for the
> NGN are. We believe that this is not overlapping with IETF standards
> activities, rather our activities would be seen as complementary for
> harmonizing IPv6 related standards relevant to NGN.
> 
> It would be very much appreciated if the IETF could provide input to
> study the impact of IPv6 to an NGN. Furthermore, it would be very
> helpful and useful for our further collaboration if the IETF could
> inform us of their standards plan regarding IPv6. We will also inform
> the IETF of our ideas in the near future and then commence creating
> Internet drafts to define our requirements.

>From the above, it's far from clear what we should be saying. Or is
there another document that outlines their request more clearly?

Looking at the current proposed response, I worry that it references
too many documents that aren't even "IETF standards". Should we be
doing that?

E.g., the document says:

> Basic support for Mobile subnetworks is defined in RFC 3963.  The
> approach taken is an extension to Mobile IPv6, and does not
> necessarily scale to all network environments.  An alternative
> approach, based on creative application of the routing protocol
> standards, is implemented in the commercial Boeing Connexion service.

Should be  mentioning this explicitely? Are we somehow endorsing this?

Also, the multihoming section says too much and uses wording that
will be a hot button for some. E.g.,

> The IETF is currently considering extensions and, in the longer term,
> potential alternatives, to Mobile IPv6.

This is a very loaded statement and I'm not sure I even agree with
it. It all depends on how you define "mobility". More to the point,
such a statement in a liaison from the IETF needs review from our
mobility community, as I suspect they will not agree with the slant of
the wording. And is this something we should be communicating to
ITU-T?

Same goes for calling "mobike" and "alternative to" mobile IP.

The multihoming section also has too much text, IMO, some of which I
don't think we need to include. Like the mention of addresss
allocation  and stuff that is RIR territory.  I'm not sure why it's
included, and I not convinced its an adequate summary.

At a 50,000 foot level, I think we'd be better served with a set of
pointers to the (relevant) approved IETF standards track documents,
maybe mention some key IDs that are near completion on the standards
track, but we need to be much more  reserved in mentioning of
experimental track documents and random IDs that do not have strong
traction in the IETF at the present time.

I think it is a fair question to ask how this statement  should be
mentioning/positioning HIP.

Finally, shouldn't this statement be reviewed by the IPv6 community
prior to it being sent out? It would not be good to have the response
"surprise" our own community.

Again, from the 50K level, how do we expect ITU-T to use our response,
and what will they do with it? Will it have the desired (from our
perspective) result?

Thomas

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
ipv6-dir@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir