Re: [v6ops] draft-chown-v6ops-call-to-arms WGLC

["George, Wes E [NTK]" <[e-mail]>]

Overall, I think that this document is quite good. My main concern is that even between now and June, it really should be a living
document rather than the static document that an IETF draft that moves towards RFC becomes. 
If it is meant to aggregate some of this info for the wider audience that sometimes sees IETF drafts, I might recommend adding
informative references to locations where more info is available and it is likely to be continually updated, such as ARIN’s
getipv6.info website, RIPE’s IPv6actnow.org, etc I’m sure that there are others, but I think you get the idea. Might also make sense
to include a reference to any wiki that ISOC is working on in preparation for the day as well. 
For example, http://getipv6.info/index.php/Customer_problems_that_could_occur has a good set of common issues and problems that
would make a nice companion to section 2.

In section 3, you might want to break instrumentation up into two categories, one for those enabling IPv6 on content sites and
another for those who have IPv6-enabled networks, as the instrumentation may be a good bit different for each, but having both types
of data will be very important. Right now, the reference to "particularly useful if your site is turning on AAAA records..." makes
it seem like the operator perspective (what worked, what didn't, who called and why) is less useful, when in reality that may turn
out to be much more useful data in aggregate. I see that you briefly cover this in 3.6, but that section is pretty light in terms of
ideas on how to categorize things, the right questions to be asking, etc. Think of it in terms of operators needing to prepare their
front-line customer service techs for this date - what do they need to know, what should they ask, track, etc?
Overall, I would think that this section would be most valuable if it proposes a minimum set of data that is important plus
additional "nice to have" info, along with some format recommendations so that eventually people can do more in-depth research and
analysis of the data available across many different organizations. 

One specific nit, sections 2.2 and 2.4:
I wonder about referring to specific tunnel brokers, even as examples, rather than making a more generic reference to something
like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IPv6_tunnel_brokers  (or another more robust wiki that lists more than 3) in lieu of
explanation as to what a tunnel broker is and does.
Then in the section on PMTUD (2.4), again there’s a specific reference to HE and Sixxs that I’m not sure adds value compared with
saying that “it’s good practice for tunnel brokers to set their MTUs to default to 1280, probably due to…”

Thanks

Wes George

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 2:00 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Ron Bonica
Subject: [v6ops] draft-chown-v6ops-call-to-arms WGLC

This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-chown-v6ops-call-to-arms. 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.

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.