Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-bdqks-arin-shared-transition-space

["Lee Howard" <[e-mail]>]

I support draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space in principle.

Ron Bonica said:
> It seems that now we have the following options:
> 
> - Argue that there is no normative dependency between draft-weil and
draft-bdqks

draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-04 looks sufficient to me.  It
describes the
need ("support such heritage IPv4-only devices") and the use case ("as
"inside"
addresses in a carrier NAT environment (e.g., between the CGN and customer
CPE 
devices) or for other IPv4 to IPv6 transition infrastructure." ).   Nobody
would be 
confused about how to implement draft-weil if draft-bdgks were never
adopted;
draft-bdgks is therefore informative, not normative.    draft-bdgks then
provides 
additional context and additional possible use cases.

> - Break the dependency between draft-weil and draft-bdqks by moving enough
motivating
> material into draft-weil

How much is "enough"?  Is an additional sentence describing "heritage
IPv4-only
devices" enough?  I can't find any description of the objection that caused
the
documents to be linked.

> - Speed up the progress of draft-bdqks

Already in WGLC, not sure it could be sped up much.

> - Live with a later ETA for draft-weil

We already have that. 

Lee