Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT Trial Deployment Report

On Feb 7, 2012, at 1:23 AM, t.petch wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "james woodyatt" <jhw@apple.com>
> To: "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@google.com>
> Cc: "v6ops v6ops WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 7:33 PM
>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 23:53 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> 
>>> As to which WG it belongs in, I don't know.
>> 
>> I would say that if there is a WG where this belongs, then it would be BEHAVE
>> and not V6OPS.  I fail to see why this needs a working group to develop any
>> further.  Wouldn't the individual submission track be more appropriate?
> 
> When I have suggested an individual submission, I get told that it costs the
> IETF more, that is that the necessary evils of publishing are amortised across a
> wider spectrum of people when a WG is involved, so unless an AD is really
> burning with desire to support an individual submission, then a WG is the way to
> go.

You haven't heard that from me. I think that a WG is the preferred approach because you are likely to get better review and discussion, but the cost issues are largely a wash.

> V6OPS or BEHAVE?  I see the latter as more limited, more focussed in scope, so
> would go for V6OPS.

The real question there is one of charter. Behave's charter (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/behave/charter/), which is written in incomplete sentences and has some important bits presumed rather than stated, is about the development of translation technologies - IPv4/IPv4 and IPv4/IPv6, in four scenarios. It is supposed to interact with v6ops on requirements and operational matters. V6ops' charter (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/charter/), among other things, calls for us to "Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, such as ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small Office), and Cellular Networks.". By that rubric, v6ops is an obvious place it might go. One could also imagine opsawg or opsec under one rubric or another.

If it's going to be discussed, I'm personally happy to have it discussed here. I have, however, gotten a lot of commentary from the operators about documents coming into v6ops that they don't want to discuss. Hence, my question is whether the operators what to discuss it, and whether they specifically want to discuss it here.

> Is it worth publishing as an RFC?  Yes, the IETF traditionally neglects
> operators, favouring 'manufacturers' so this would help redress the balance.

Urban legend. This falls right in there with "operators don't get involved in the IETF". Hi. Welcome to the IETF. You're an operator, and you are participating in a discussion that is largely among operators within the IETF.

> Tom Petch
> 
>> --
>> j h woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops