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

[Gyan Mishra <[e-mail]>]

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 A**rchitect *

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



*M 301 502-1347*