IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IP-TNG Presentations in Amsterdam

Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcern.cern.ch> Wed, 16 June 1993 06:45 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00501; 16 Jun 93 2:45 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00497; 16 Jun 93 2:45 EDT
Received: from p.lanl.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01004; 16 Jun 93 2:45 EDT
Received: from noc-gw.lanl.gov by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA16935; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:44:00 -0600
Received: by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03104; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:43:06 MDT
Return-Path: <brian@dxcern.cern.ch>
Received: from p.lanl.gov by noc-gw.lanl.gov (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA03100; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:43:04 MDT
Received: from dxmint.cern.ch by p.lanl.gov (5.65/1.14) id AA16907; Wed, 16 Jun 93 00:43:05 -0600
Received: from dxcern.cern.ch by dxmint.cern.ch (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA28588; Wed, 16 Jun 1993 08:43:03 +0200
Received: by dxcern.cern.ch (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA18031; Wed, 16 Jun 1993 08:42:59 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcern.cern.ch>
Message-Id: <9306160642.AA18031@dxcern.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: IP-TNG Presentations in Amsterdam
To: Frank T Solensky <solensky@andr.ub.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 08:42:59 +0200
Cc: Victor.Reijs@surfnet.nl, ericf@atc.boeing.com, A.A.Reijnierse@research.ptt.nl, mak@merit.edu, tuba@lanl.gov
In-Reply-To: <9306151721.AA22037@fenway.andr.UB.com> from "Frank T Solensky" at Jun 15, 93 01:21:30 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 2036 

> 
> Just out of curiosity -- how closely does this tie in with the
> "IPng criteria" working group/BOF that met in Washington?
> 
> 					-- Frank
> 
This is the current version - I think I owe the IETF list
a final one: next week.
		       Brian

BOF at Amsterdam IETF
=====================

Title: IPng decision process

Description: The goal of this BOF is to seek rough consensus on
how to progress in the decision process about the next generation
of IP.

A set of decision criteria has been established (see Internet Draft
draft-partridge-ipv7-criteria-01.txt) and the BOF will not re-discuss
them. A set of four candidates for IPng has emerged (IPv7, PIP, SIP, TUBA
in alphabetical order) and the BOF will not discuss their details or
merits. Very short term measures (CIDR) and very long term measures
will not be discussed.

The topics to be discussed include:

  - Who is qualified to decide on behalf of the Internet community?
    Another way to ask the question: should there be a decision point,
    or can we let the market decide?

  - What procedures (analysis, bake-off, etc) should be used to
    evaluate each candidate against the criteria?

  - Whether, when and how to open up the IPng discussion among
    the Internet user community (broadly defined to include
    WAN and LAN network operators as well as end users)? How
    does this community interact with the decision takers?

  - What timescale is realistic for the decision process?
    There is a subsidiary technical discussion here: if
    the Internet truly runs out of addresses in year N,

      when (year N-x) should the decision be made?

      when (year N-y) should the software be ready for field test?

      what is the latest time (N-z) to start the transition?


  - Does the decision process need specific financial or manpower
    support?

with the goal of being able to write an Internet Draft on the
decision process after the BOF.

Regards,
	Brian Carpenter CERN, brian@dxcern.cern.ch
			voice +41 22 767 4967, fax +41 22 767 7155

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email