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:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] 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 <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 8:20
> Para: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>, V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
> 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:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] 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
>     > v6ops@ietf.org
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     v6ops@ietf.org
>     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
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops