Re: [v6ops] Enterprise Guidance on IPv6 (draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00)

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lee,

If you do decide to pursue this further, here are two
documents that fit this space:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-v6ops-isops/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5214/

Fred
[e-mail]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Lee Howard
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:37 AM
> To: 'Victor Kuarsingh'; 'IPv6 Operations'
> Subject: [v6ops] Enterprise Guidance on IPv6 (draft-chkpvc-enterprise-
> incremental-ipv6-00)
> 
> When discussed in Taipei, it seemed there was real interest in updating
> guidance for
> enterprise networks.  From lack of list discussion, it now appears there's
> no interest in
> the WG.
> 
> 1.  Are people interested?
> 2.  Should we let it die?
> 3.  Should we pursue other avenues of publication?
> 
> Lee
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of
> Victor
> > Kuarsingh
> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 7:42 AM
> > To: IPv6 Operations
> > Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00
> >
> > IPv6 WG,
> >
> > I would like to kick off some comments on this draft for other group
> members to comment.
> >
> > I do think (Bias noted) that this material is useful for Enterprises who
> need to being and/or
> > move their IPv6 deployments.  Many (of those I have worked with thus
> far)
> are bogged
> > down with personnel who are overwhelmed with what it may take to get
> IPv6
> moving on
> > their networks.
> >
> > The draft breaks the challenge down by areas of focus (rolled into
> > "Phases") which can help put this large challenge into bite size chunks
> for them. The draft
> > also provides some valid contextual information around
> > IPv6 and highlights areas which should be looked at.
> >
> > Given the good momentum we now have in the operator space, it would be
> good to see this
> > move forward into the Enterprise space.  I think such documents can help
> many of those still
> > waffling (too many to count) to start acting.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Victor K
> >
> >
> > On 12-03-22 8:02 AM, "Tim Chown" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >Due to a typo in the draft name, this draft didn't hit Fred's automated
> > >WG tools, so the authors would like to raise the draft on the list now
> > >with a view to securing a slot in Paris to discuss its value and
> content.
> > >
> > >In Taipei there was a comment in the WG session that there is no
> > >up-to-date v6ops guidance on enterprise networks, while other scenarios
> > >do have such texts.  So at the mic I invited people to join an effort
> > >to put something together.  There is a good breadth of experience
> > >across the people who stepped forward, and the result is available as
> > >
> > >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-chkpvc-enterprise-incremental-ipv6-00.txt
> > >
> > >Does the WG think the subject matter of this draft is one we should
> > >pursue in the WG?  If so, is the structure and content appropriate?  We
> > >need some positive feedback and comments in order for Fred to schedule
> > >us time in Paris.
> > >
> > >We have had a couple of people contact us off-list offering to help
> > >develop the content.  But we'd like some feedback from the WG before
> > >investing more time in doing so.  The -00 text is somewhat "rough", but
> > >we feel it could be polished into something quite useful for the
> > >community.
> > >
> > >Tim
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >v6ops mailing list
> > >[e-mail]
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops