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

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

Hi Victor,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victor Kuarsingh [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:44 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L; Lee Howard; 'IPv6 Operations'
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Enterprise Guidance on IPv6 (draft-chkpvc-enterprise-
> incremental-ipv6-00)
> 
> Fred,
> 
> I would (personally) tend to agree.  Given the details from
> "draft-templin-v6ops-ispos", would a reference to that document fit the
> bill?

Assuming the authors decide to pursue this work further, then
a reference to "draft-templin-v6ops-isops" would be fine.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

 
> Regards,
> 
> Victor K
> 
> 
> 
> On 12-06-13 12:20 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >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
>