Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document

Filling in the bits I can respond to ...

On 01/06/2006 09:34 AM, Thomas Narten allegedly wrote:
>>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?

Their charter is how to use IPv6 to meet ITU-T NGN scenario needs.
This liaison of theirs was in response to our liaison saying they
should not come up with solutions to their problems involving protocol
extensions on their own, and that they should do scenarios,
requirements, profiles etc. and bring those to the IETF for protocol
work.  They enthusiastically said yes (some of them already
participate).  They are looking at their requirements, looking at
IPv6, and doing a gap analysis.  In order to do that more effectively,
they asked: what is the IETF's "standards plan" for IPv6?  That is,
where is IPv6 going?  What's the roadmap?

> 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?

They want a sense of where things are going.  If a draft is clearly
agreed to be headed toward standard, and it's relatively fundamental,
they would like to know about it.

>>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?

Assuming it is factual, I don't see the harm in communicating IETF's
direction to ITU-T, at least this Question.  They gladly acknowledge
the IETF's leadership, are looking forward to cooperation, and want to
know where they are being led.

> 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.

Right.

> 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.

IMHO if the information in it is factual, what's to review?  You sort
of cover that in your other statements.

> 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?

The desired result is that they feel confirmed in their idea that the
IETF is providing leadership, and have a good feeling about bringing
their requirements in (as drafts).  I think the liaison is on the
right track.  The issue I guess is content.

swb

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