Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC

draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 is not an RFC yet nor in
the IESG review and thus this document has to be punted to rfc6204ter.
Further the tech described in the document should be a Standard Tracks
document.  Chris Donley who represents all Cable MSO's from Cablelabs
has expressed an urgent desire to get rfc6204bis out as an RFC by
December 2011.  Barbara Stark has expressed a similar desire.  Further
FT Orange and Telecom Italia have expressed the urgency too.

If this email can humbly be considered for closure, one can avoid a
lengthy discussion at Paris during the presentation of rfc6204bis in
v6ops. For a much later consideration, which mailing list is
draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 being discussed and where
are the review comments?

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Townsley
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 6:49 PM
To: Fred Baker (fred)
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org; v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org; Ron Bonica
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis WGLC

The current description of 6rd and ds-lite in 6204bis dangerously avoids
the issue of how to gracefully transition from a native IPv4 to
Dual-Stack lite, in particular with a retail CPE vs. ISP-managed CPE.
The same is true for graceful sunsetting of 6rd to native IPv6.

Ole and I captured the rather heated discussion on v6ops a couple of
months back in the following document:
draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02

I believe the problem here is that there is demand from operators to
include DS-Lite and 6rd in this document is very strong, yet the
implementation details have not been specified well enough to allow
DS-Lite and Native IPv4 or Native IPv6 and 6rd to coexist in a
consistent and non-distruptive manner with one another. This is fairly
dangerous as it will undoubtedly lead to highly variant implementation.
I can easily see this sinking the ability to incrementally deploy
DS-Lite in a retail CPE setting, for example. It could also be
detrimental to sunsetting of 6rd.

I'd be happy to present the issue to v6ops. I think the issue needs to
be voiced (as the draft appeared since the last meeting, it has not had
airtime in any IETF meeting yet, despite us revving a couple of times). 

- Mark

On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling
errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors;
if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or
finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your
comments to the list. The draft will be on the agenda at IETF 83, and I
would like to send the authors home with a work plan to complete it if
it is not to the WG's liking.
> 
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
comment to make.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops