Re: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft

Re-,

..but you have also this "The IPv6 Transition CE router MUST comply with [RFC7084]" which means that the document is asking to comply with an RFC (that its updates). A cross dependency is to be fixed. 

If you want to proceed with the update approach, then you should update: 

OLD: 
  The IPv6 Transition CE router MUST comply with [RFC7084].

to something which says section 4.4.1 is to be ignored.

An alternate wording would be:

NEW:
  The IPv6 Transition CE router MUST comply with [RFC7084] and its updates.

But again, this is weird given that an "update" is this document. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2018 09:35
> À : V6 Ops List
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
> 
> I believe an RFC can update a previous one in any sense.
> 
> So, what I'm suggesting is deleting a section that now includes DS-Lite and
> 6rd, but only including DS-Lite in the new document.
> 
> Current section "4.4.  Transition Technologies Support", includes only 2 sub-
> sections 4.4.1 6rd, and 4.4.2. Nothing else. So I'm suggesting that we copy
> 4.4.2, as suggested by Barbara, but left out 4.4.1.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 9:27
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, V6 Ops List
> <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Asunto: RE: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
> 
>     Re-,
> 
>     I don't parse well what is meant by an update which consists in moving
> the content from an RFC to another "future" RFC.
> 
>     Cheers,
>     Med
> 
>     > -----Message d'origine-----
>     > De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
>     > Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2018 09:07
>     > À : V6 Ops List
>     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
>     >
>     > Hi Med,
>     >
>     > My personal opinion is still that a bis makes more sense, but I think
> that
>     > train already left.
>     >
>     > So, what I think it make sense now is to update only the transition
> section
>     > on RFC7084 in this new document, may be something like:
>     >
>     > "This document updates RFC7084 by deleting section 4.4. RFC7084 is, as
> a
>     > consequence, reduced in scope to the specification of requirements for
> an
>     > IPv6 Customer Edge, not including transition support, so all the
> transition
>     > requirements are defined instead, in this document."
>     >
>     > Then we avoid any mention of 6rd and include the DS-Lite section in
> this
>     > document.
>     >
>     > Med, Barbara, what do you think?
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Jordi
>     >
>     >
>     > -----Mensaje original-----
>     > De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de
>     > <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
>     > Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 8:20
>     > Para: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
>     > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
>     >
>     >     Re-,
>     >
>     >     I do think this would be so simple if the WG went for a bis
> document.
>     >
>     >     I don't understand the rationale for duplicating DS-Lite content
> given
>     > that Jordi's I-D points to 7084.
>     >
>     >     Cheers,
>     >     Med
>     >
>     >     > -----Message d'origine-----
>     >     > De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de STARK,
> BARBARA
>     > H
>     >     > Envoyé : mercredi 25 avril 2018 20:59
>     >     > À : V6 Ops List
>     >     > Objet : [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
>     >     >
>     >     > I have a number of comments for draft-palet-v6ops-transition-
> ipv4aas.
>     > I'm
>     >     > grouping comments under different email subject headers so it's
> easier
>     > to
>     >     > track the topic of any resulting discussion.
>     >     >
>     >     > The first area of comments I have is on how to position this
> draft
>     > relative
>     >     > to RFC 7084 and in a way that will maximize its impact and
> likelihood
>     > of
>     >     > achieving its goal (which I think is to drive availability of CE
>     > routers that
>     >     > support *all* of the included transition technologies).
>     >     >
>     >     > I notice the draft introduces the term "IPv6 transition CE".
> Sometimes
>     > this
>     >     > is "IPv6 transition CE router". I like this idea, but would
> suggest
>     >     > capitalizing and using the longer "IPv6 Transition CE Router". I
> think
>     > if
>     >     > this is a more formal term and this draft is positioned as
> defining
>     >     > requirements for an IPv6 Transition CE Router (rather than simply
>     > specifying
>     >     > "the transition requirements for an IPv6 Customer Edge (CE)
> router")
>     > then it
>     >     > becomes ok to make most of the SHOULD requirements into a MUST.
> That
>     > is, the
>     >     > draft is not an extension of a CE Router (RFC 7084). It's
> something new
>     > that
>     >     > is specified and defined here. And should be the title of the
> draft.
>     >     >
>     >     > Saying "MUST" is stronger than "SHOULD" and will increase
> likelihood of
>     >     > success. It will also increase likelihood that *all* of the
> included
>     >     > technologies are implemented (as currently written it would be
> possible
>     > to do
>     >     > one or 2 of the technologies and still claim compliance). And it
> will
>     > make it
>     >     > easier to create a subsequent certification program, if there is
> demand
>     > for
>     >     > one. If the MUST statements apply only to the IPv6 Transition CE
> Router
>     > this
>     >     > draft defines, then there is no problem with saying "MUST". The
>     > requirements
>     >     > have no scope outside this draft.
>     >     >
>     >     > ----------
>     >     >
>     >     > If taking this approach, requirements for DS-Lite would need to
> be
>     > included.
>     >     > Those can be copied from RFC 7084.
>     >     >
>     >     > ----------
>     >     >
>     >     > RFC 7084 can still be a basis for this new thing (MUST comply
> with RFC
>     > 7084).
>     >     >
>     >     > The current requirement for RFC 7084 compliance is "The IPv6
> Transition
>     > CE
>     >     > router must comply with all the requirements stated in
> [RFC7084]."
>     >     > I suggest staying away from "all the requirements", since the RFC
> 7084
>     > SHOULD
>     >     > and MAY requirements are also requirements, and I don't think
> it's
>     > intended
>     >     > to mandate those. I recommend simply saying:
>     >     > The IPv6 Transition CE router MUST comply with [RFC7084].
>     >     >
>     >     > ---------
>     >     >
>     >     > If done this way, I don't think it's necessary to make mention of
> 6rd
>     > in any
>     >     > way. It's omission from this draft will make it clear that it's
> not a
>     >     > component of an IPv6 Transition CE Router.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > Barbara
>     >     >
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > 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
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > **********************************************
>     > IPv4 is over
>     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     > http://www.consulintel.es
>     > The IPv6 Company
>     >
>     > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>     > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use
> of the
>     > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure,
>     > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
> if
>     > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
>     > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be
> aware
>     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
> this
>     > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>     > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to
> the
>     > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > v6ops mailing list
>     > v6ops@ietf.org
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops