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

[Masanobu Kawashima <[e-mail]>]

Jordi, 

I got your point. It makes sense now. Thank you for the clarification. 

Regards, 
Masanobu 

==================================== 
 NEC Platforms, Ltd.                 
 KAWASHIMA Masanobu                  
 [e-mail]            
 https://www.necplatforms.co.jp/en/  
==================================== 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:15 PM
> To: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
> 
> Hi Masanobu,
> 
> In the last 2 years, we had a lot of debate about a possible RFC7084-bis (which means obsoleting RFC7084), and the
> conclusion was that this is *not wanted*. I don't think we should restart that discussion anymore.
> 
> So, what I'm proposing is "no need for an RFC7084-bis", however, the new document can make an update only to the transition
> section of RFC7084 (no need to modify this document, the RFC editor will make a header note on that one to reflect
> the "link" to the new document).
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Masanobu Kawashima <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 14:38
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: RE: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
> 
> 
>     I agree with Jordi.
> 
>     As for the positioning of this draft and RFC7084, I think following is better
>     for CPE vendors, ISPs, etc.
> 
>     - RFC7084bis
>       - Delete 6rd and DS-Lite section and refer to "The IPv6 Transition CE router"
>         document.
>       - Some other minor updates if it is needed.
> 
>     - 'The IPv6 Transition CE router' (transition-ipv4aas)
>       - Include DS-Lite section from RFC7084.
> 
>     If you want to know IPv6 CE router specs, you will check and comply RFC7084bis,
>     if you want to focus more on transition technologies, you can check and comply
>     'The IPv6 Transition CE router' document.
> 
>     Regards,
>     Masanobu
> 
>     ====================================
>      NEC Platforms, Ltd.
>      KAWASHIMA Masanobu
>      [e-mail]
>      https://www.necplatforms.co.jp/en/
>     ====================================
> 
> 
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>     > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 5:01 PM
>     > To: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
>     > Subject: Re: [v6ops] transition-ipv4aas: positioning the draft
>     >
>     > That's a good point, let's see if Barbara agree.
>     >
>     > I don't see a problem if it is made clear that this new document complements and updates RFC7084 in one specific
> section.
>     > Maybe the chairs or AD can confirm this?
>     > "The IPv6 Transition CE router MUST comply with [RFC7084], ignoring section 4.4. as it becomes updated by this
> document"
>     >
>     > One more advantage of that approach is that when somebody finds somewhere a reference to RFC7084, will be also
> noticing
>     > the update, so they will read the new document, so it is a perfect way for 2 documents to become complementary.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Jordi
>     >
>     >
>     > -----Mensaje original-----
>     > De: <[e-mail]>
>     > Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 9:52
>     > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
>     > Asunto: 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:[e-mail]] 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: <[e-mail]>
>     >     > Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 9:27
>     >     > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List
>     >     > <[e-mail]>
>     >     > 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:[e-mail]] 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 <[e-mail]> en nombre de
>     >     >     > <[e-mail]>
>     >     >     > Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 8:20
>     >     >     > Para: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
>     >     >     > 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:[e-mail]] 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
>     >     >     >     > [e-mail]
>     >     >     >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>     >     >     >
>     >     >     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     >     >     v6ops mailing list
>     >     >     >     [e-mail]
>     >     >     >     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
>     >     >     > [e-mail]
>     >     >     > 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
>     >     > [e-mail]
>     >     > 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
>     > [e-mail]
>     > 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops