Re: [Softwires] Moving forward with 4rd-T, 4rd-E & 4rd-U

"Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <moulchan@cisco.com> Thu, 02 February 2012 07:16 UTC

Return-Path: <moulchan@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D229021F8AE1 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 23:16:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.276
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P7e7QjP4EoYA for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 23:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B182121F8AD3 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 23:16:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=moulchan@cisco.com; l=4472; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328166974; x=1329376574; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=scXGosPDZQH7OGxNa2P1GYmkoS+vbr4BBP7QrvaruUs=; b=mukKCzPStIrYjNZ1LSDFyMtA/p/7fAnCl5+rX2hT4hDHH9Jf9H4SM67r EteYf06YjwxCme7jrUMJ+LrQBDOgMUbnLtAhjA9nUYIs/+6J4KfV/zWRj itNIyhLhL9bt1dq5r+axUTzlW16AKFCh/1sf1IS/Zmurr/C+3f4NI72xZ w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAFk3Kk+tJXG9/2dsb2JhbABDrwmBBYFyAQEBBAEBAQ8BHQoNJwsMBAIBCA4DBAEBCwYXAQYBJh8JCAEBBAESCAwHB4djmXABkEiOEotJKzUMAoQygnVjBIhCn1Q
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,608,1320624000"; d="scan'208";a="55719369"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Feb 2012 07:16:14 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com [72.163.63.9]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q127GDbI030933; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 07:16:13 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-106.cisco.com ([72.163.62.148]) by xbh-rcd-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:16:12 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:16:07 -0600
Message-ID: <E9B25823FA871E4AA9EDA7B163E5D8A907764011@XMB-RCD-106.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B140D6B2-1B19-43D7-9B63-6BEA83CEB164@juniper.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Moving forward with 4rd-T, 4rd-E & 4rd-U
Thread-Index: Aczg/o/r7v3+nerQQUWkiU5+ojD5AwAey44Q
References: <B140D6B2-1B19-43D7-9B63-6BEA83CEB164@juniper.net>
From: "Mouli Chandramouli (moulchan)" <moulchan@cisco.com>
To: Alain Durand <adurand@juniper.net>, Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2012 07:16:12.0933 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B7C2350:01CCE17A]
Cc: Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Moving forward with 4rd-T, 4rd-E & 4rd-U
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:16:15 -0000

Hello,

To evaluate the merits/demerits of these approaches, there can be also
be a benchmark of use cases (V6 transition network scenarios).
It may be useful to have prototypes implemented and results can be
published for these scenarios, which can help in converging and
narrowing down the methods. 

Thanks 
Mouli

-----Original Message-----
From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Alain Durand
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 9:59 PM
To: Softwires WG
Cc: Yong Cui; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: [Softwires] Moving forward with 4rd-T, 4rd-E & 4rd-U

Dear wg,

We now have a number of documents and solutions on the table in the 4rd
category: all the MAP effort, including 4rd-T & 4rd-E,
and, somehow separately, the 4rd-U effort. I will claim that there is a
very large overlap between all those solution and somehow small
differences.
For the sake of this discussion, I'll say the overlap is about 90%, the
exact number is irrelevant, what matters is that this number is much
more than 50%

I have expressed many times that, in my view, the main role of a
standard process is to pick one solution when multiple are available.
Not that
the others are bad, but that the fact of not choosing and pushing
through the process a number of solutions that are 90% or more identical
is not doing
the community any good.

Back at Beijin interim meeting, we agreed on 'publishing' a number of
documents, but did not agree on status and/or recommendation
attached to 4rd-E and 4rd-T. later, 4rd-U came as an attempt at unifying
then.

At stake here is not so much the organization of the document set, nor
which document(s) are accepted as wg item(s) right now
on the basis that they are somehow technologically 'ready'.

At stake now is how many solutions that are 90% overlapping we are going
to send to the IESG. In other words,
at stake is the capability of this wg to make clear recommendations  as
to what to implement and what to deploy.

At this point in time, I think the wg as the choice between a number of
paths forward:

1) Declare failure to reach consensus and stop working on this 4rd
space.
2) Declare a Pyrrhic(*) victory, publish everything on the standard
track without any recommendation as to which one to use
3) Declare partial victory, publish everything as Experimental, let the
market decide and come back in two years
     to put the winner on the standard track.
4) Converge to a consensus toward one 'recommended' solution, publish
that one as Standard track and publish the
     other ones as experimental/informational, THEN declare victory.
Note that using standard track vs experimental is just one way
     to make recommendations on status, there are others, such as
publishing a recommendation document or adding
     recommendation text in a boiler plate inside each document.

I'd think that we would all agree that 1) is the least preferred option.

2) might be appealing as a short term solution to (not solve) the
recommendation problem we are faced with, but if we do that,
I would claim that the wg would have not done its job and would have
simply added to the confusion around
which transition mechanism to choose. Hence my qualification of this
solution as 'Pyrrhic' victory.

As wg co-chair, my perspective is that we should do either 3) or 4)

I would like to encourage the wg to start a discussion toward 4) on the
mailing list so that we could have a productive conversation in Paris,
where I intend to ask for wg feedback on this question.

More over, 4rd-U claims to solves a number of issues that the MAP suite
of documents does not address. It would be beneficial to have
a discussion on the mailing list  to see if a) those issues are
important or not and b), if they are, are they properties of 4rd-U or
could they be solved as well
in MAP, they just have not been addressed there yet.

In the mean time, I believe we should hold off accepting any document as
wg item. I'd like to use the upcoming Paris meeting
next month as a forcing function to make progress and I encourage
discussion on the mailing list on thee above topics until then.

     Alain, Softwire wg co-chair.


(*)See http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires