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

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Fri, 11 June 2021 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1969A3A2C0D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 23:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yhzUb604oXir for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 23:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.70.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA093A2C0A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jun 2021 23:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.70]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfednr22.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4G1WqG3lWWzywr; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 08:56:58 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1623394618; bh=KHEu3lEuoLPoIjk6hNKCXnEHa52cFQiATGk+iDs35Uk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=M5KOh0q4jSBCSCIyFDW3CuML1Wmou/dTerLJijfRl0340MfcjUegKN6BrfDLK+sZW aN7M70sljBJi9/oaw/ugxtAcgdprz6qKBwcl2hCZtKeM8KqYqWn6eTCTlgLjh7MlXh V4skySxsmLlh10FHgJWZ3R/d+eBkf19pNnA3EktqL6K4MmKde7GBIUry/70rLc6v3C 6p1TSXoieHEJYoZTNFqmyzuqo6V95rwnLNH/wgZP30/JveZBCH4BqmOlRyu2KRXoVY 0y2IvXSmwn1OJCcqoHfGhumDJwVaej5FZPTA2MPfRoX2F0fFxfVUCAQBowUx0AkeFq PBngSkwUc04Dw==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by opfednr06.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTPS id 4G1WqG2RCnzDq7d; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 08:56:58 +0200 (CEST)
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
CC: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>, Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
Thread-Index: AQHXXovic2xEqF8NpE6ml3EOMBUXkKsOXP2Q
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 06:56:56 +0000
Message-ID: <19625_1623394618_60C3093A_19625_189_14_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353A8939@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <BL0PR05MB5316B21F3D035339CEE892F0AE3D9@BL0PR05MB5316.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <7211c26d-5fe4-cf8a-f24a-afd9bb09eb64@foobar.org> <4668_1623392252_60C2FFFC_4668_93_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353A88FB@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CABNhwV2m-pRpibd5K=eAx93prtzBE7oKePoDGe4TBOMz7BLVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2m-pRpibd5K=eAx93prtzBE7oKePoDGe4TBOMz7BLVRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.247]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353A8939OPEXCAUBMA2corp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/YuFHcjpQ2I2XhBPLLf2FhB61Yh8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 06:57:06 -0000

Re-,

Thanks, Gyan.

The part I was referring to is basically what you to start discuss in Section 7.3: Performance issues. Not even the call for action.

I would avoid statements such as “IPvX is faster than IPvY” (also echoed in the draft) as things are in general more subtle than that. Let alone that local tweaking may infer observed behaviors (recommendation followed by a CPE, how the interconnection is achieved, etc.).

The challenge of your draft is to extract ** technical issues ** and (hopefully) provide actionable recommendations to make things better. This can be for example to develop methods in bmwg for better assessing performance.

Cheers,
Med

De : Gyan Mishra [mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 11 juin 2021 08:35
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
Cc : Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>; Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; v6ops@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

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 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> 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:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org>] De la part de Nick
> Hilliard
> Envoyé : mardi 8 juin 2021 11:37
> À : Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> Cc : v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> 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
> v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
> 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
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
--

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com<mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>

M 301 502-1347


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.