Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med,

Responses in-line

Many thanks

Gyan

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:56 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Re-,
>
>
>
> Thanks, Gyan.
>
>
>
> The part I was referring to is basically what you to start discuss in
> Section 7.3: Performance issues. Not even the call for action.
>
> Gyan> Ack I think what we need to do is clearly document issues and then
> recommendations but without using biased opinions and create a list
>
of actionable recommendations at the end of section 7.
>
Also section 7 maybe change the name “call for action” to “IPv6 transition
> challenges”.
>
I would avoid statements such as “IPvX is faster than IPvY” (also echoed in
> the draft) as things are in general more subtle than that. Let alone that
> local tweaking may infer observed behaviors (recommendation followed by a
> CPE, how the interconnection is achieved, etc.).
>
> Gyan> Agreed.
>
> The challenge of your draft is to extract ** technical issues ** and
> (hopefully) provide actionable recommendations to make things better. This
> can be for example to develop methods in bmwg for better assessing
> performance.
>
> Gyan> This draft has a lot of content but now we have to try to make it
> useful content by providing an actionable list at the end that could help
> IPv6 transition for operators.
>

Gyan> Thanks for all the feedback

> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Gyan Mishra [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* vendredi 11 juin 2021 08:35
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
> *Cc :* Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <rbonica=
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>
>
> *Objet :* Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
>
>
>
> Hi Med
>
>
>
> Understood and we appreciate all the feedback to help improve the draft.
>
>
>
> Myself as well as other authors have thoughts on how we can improve the
> draft as it stands but we want to make sure we are in sync with the WG
> feedback as to changes proposed.
>
>
>
> Can you provide some details as to what you propose as to sections that
> need to be shuffled and or verbiage that need improvement. Your proposal
> may not be identical to Nicks so we would like to see yours and Nicks as
> well as others and incorporate any and all feedback as best we can to
> improve the draft.
>
>
>
> Many thanks
>
>
>
> Gyan
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:18 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Nick made valid points. I agree with many of them.
>
> I would extract only parts that identify/discuss issues/hurldes and enrich
> them with some recommendations.
>
> Other material can be published in other forms better than an RFC.
>
> I don't support adopting with the current content.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Nick
> > Hilliard
> > Envoyé : mardi 8 juin 2021 11:37
> > À : Ron Bonica <rbonica=[e-mail]>
> > Cc : [e-mail]
> > Objet : Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-
> > deployment
> >
> > Ron Bonica wrote on 02/06/2021 19:11:
> > > This message initiates a call for adoption on
> > > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment. Please post messages expressing
> > your
> > > position on adoption and rationale by 6/16/2021.
> >
> > I'm struggling with this document. It looks like an aggregation of
> > three separate things: a copy / rewording of chunks of ETSI White
> > Paper 35, an operator survey with some results and the "Call for
> > action" section, a set of suggestions on how to improve matters.
> >
> > Regarding the survey, no methodology was provided and the sample
> > size was too small to infer statistical significance.  Survey
> > results are potentially interesting, but the results in this case
> > are anecdotal.
> >
> > The Call for Action consists of a disparate list of technical and
> > policy issues, ranging from "Government and Regulators" to
> > "Oversized IPv6 packets".  There is no clear indication of how any
> > particular topic made it into this list, or why other topics may
> > have been excluded.
> >
> > Overall the document doesn't sit together happily; it draws
> > conclusions in different areas based on insufficient data; many
> > topics are presented without enough depth to provide sufficient
> > justification for the claims that are made; there are a lot of
> > unattributed statistics which could be misinterpreted as data.  I
> > would be concerned that if it were published, many of the statistics
> > could be requoted elsewhere using this as a primary document, and as
> > it stands, the data quality isn't good enough to justify this.
> >
> > The "Call for action" section has potential promise and would
> > benefit from being moved to a separate document which discusses
> > considerations for / impediments to IPv6 adoption.
> >
> > The operator poll needs examination in a separate document. There's
> > insufficient detail at this point to work out whether there's enough
> > material for an ID.
> >
> > The ID would be better to settle on a cohesive and well-defined set
> > of goals and then cover those comprehensively rather than providing
> > a sparse overview of a wide selection of disparate topics.  There is
> > material in there which is potentially interesting, but there is no
> > clear path from where the document currently is to making a
> > publishable rfc.  So at the moment there isn't a basis for the WG to
> > adopt the ID.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions Architect *
>
> *Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [e-mail] <[e-mail]>*



*M 301 502-1347*