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

[<[e-mail]>]

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