Re: [v6ops] 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 24, 2012, at 3:31 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> V6ops Chairs,
>  
> I’d like to defer to you on this one. 

I think the chairs would expect that.

For this case, the chairs already made their call. The reason we are here is that you and Chris didn't follow what was asked by them.

What was asked was to Include the three basic requirements based on my presentation. I sent those to Chris one week after the IETF. He decided to throw them in the trash, instead giving you a different set to publish. 

The best way to end this, is to just take the advice from the people who have actually built and deployed 6rd for some time, and have planned out the CPE requirements for how to transition to native and include that text. Before you didn't have that text, because Chris threw it away. Now you do. 

- Mark

> We have been down this road during the past two months where the draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 is trying to add requirements to rfc6204bis but the draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 is clearly not completed work.    The draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 seems to be boiling the ocean and is not going to be an RFC even in one year.   So could we stop the 6rd thrashing and just ship rfc6204bis with basic 6rd requirements?  Further, we are also going in circles.  6rd folks gave Chris some text to add to rfc6304bis at Paris but when Chris adds the text to rfc6204bis we are thrashing with that text too.    I don’t think any advanced 6rd requirement has gestated for text in the past two months.    
>  
> My humble recommendation is to ship rfc6204bis right now.  I am happy to back out the Paris text added for 6rd in the -08 version.
>  
> Hemant
>  
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:31 PM
> To: Simon Perreault
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] FW: 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis
>  
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Perreault [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 3:21 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: FW: [v6ops] 6rd sunsetting requirements for 6204-bis
>  
> >But Mark's argument is, if I understand correctly, that not supporting
> >native alongside 6rd *harms the Internet* because it prevents graceful
> >transitioning from 6rd to native. That argument is specific to 6rd, not
> >generic to all tunnel interfaces.
>  
> Fine for an argument.  But again, the CPE router is consumer device that needs a specification for automata related to concurrent operation of native IPv6 and 6rd including specifying the transition from native IPv6 6rd or vice versa.  Such a specification does not exist in RFC form.  Rfc6204bis only accepts technology in RFC form or in rare exceptions, technology where the draft is in the IESG.  
>  
> Hemant
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops