Re: [v6ops] Discussion: IPv4 as a Service

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

Since they might be among the early folks I would ask to write something, I asked Xing Li, Akira, and Suprita to comment specifically on the outline: “if you were to write such a document, how would this outline work for you”.

Suprita replied as follows. I have changed the proposed outline in a manner similar to her suggestion.

> On Mar 31, 2015, at 2:41 PM, suprita <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I tried to first re-write the "Outlined hierarchy" used  and then make any modification to it, as per ease of answering them.
> I did not have to do many changes to the one already used by you, with minor adjustments in naming convention and placements..
> 
> Experience Gathering : Heading
> 
> General/Overview
> 	Major Motivation(s)
> 	v4 as-a-service Requirements
> 		Exactly which v4 Service Types
> Architecture and Methodology
> 	Major Design Considerations
> 	Regulatory Considerations
> 	Security Considerations
> 	Operational Considerations
> 	End-User Experience Considerations
> Observations and Experiences
> 	Effects on End-User
> 	Effects on Internal Staff
> 		Planning & Design
> 		Implementation
> 		Operations
> 	Effects on Business
> Summary: Post-mortem Report
> 	Deviations from RFC's/Drafts/Standards
> 	Worked Well
> 	Did not work well
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:56 AM, suprita <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Dear Fred,
> 
> I am yet to apply newly learnt skill from you of applying filters for the directly addressed e-mails :).
> I will sure go through the doc in detail and comment.
> 
> Thank you,
> Suprita
> 
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 30, 2015, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> > Over the weekend, we crowd-sourced a number of pretty good questions. I took the liberty, this morning, of reorganizing the text a bit. The "list of technologies" and "list of questions" remain, but I have added "possible (classes of) documents to be developed" and a first cut at a proposed outline, with the questions from above pulled in to make it clear what I might hope the section might comment on.
> >
> > Collecting comments and thoughts. I guarantee there is something we haven’t thought of (as I was reorganizing, several points popped out, and I’m sure I’m not that smart).
> >
> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ifDEkoypW43lgZJqh2paUDcMAwoUWdz6psyEb456c3A/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ifDEkoypW43lgZJqh2paUDcMAwoUWdz6psyEb456c3A/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
> The first thing I am wondering about is whether the proposed outline “works”. Would you be willing to spend an hour thinking through the outline and wondering how you would respond to it for Reliance? What questions are missing? Would another organization work better?
> 
>