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

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 24, 2012, at 1:02 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02 is not an RFC yet nor in

Stating the obvious

> the IESG review and thus this document has to be punted to rfc6204ter.

Is there even consensus that a 6204ter document should exist at all? I certainly hope not. 

> Further the tech described in the document should be a Standard Tracks
> document.  

Perhaps. The problem is that the requirements placed in 6204bis require some version of this tech (several options are identified, there is one we prefer of course, but I argue that at least one by definition must be chosen - 6204 bis just ignores it). 

> Chris Donley who represents all Cable MSO's from Cablelabs

In the IETF, Chris Donley represents Chris Donley.

> 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.

As above.

> 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?

It's targeted at v6ops, but we made a mistake when we named it obviously. 

- Mark

> 
> Hemant
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Mark Townsley
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 6:49 PM
> To: Fred Baker (fred)
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops