Re: [v6ops] [*SPAM* Score/Req: 3.5/3.3] possible path forward with RFC7084 and transition/other stuff

I am not enthusiastic about making changes at this time, first because I
think there's no urgency, and second because I do not know what "require
HNCP" means.   Can you elaborate?

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:48 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We will like to know the WG opinions on this.
>
> (I’m sending this email after checking with the WG chairs if they agree on
> it)
>
> Yesterday during the bits-N-bytes here in Prague, a few of us (in copy),
> have a chat about a possible path forward with the RFC7084-bis and related
> docs.
>
> If I understood correctly, we somehow agreed that a possible path is
> (let’s call this CHOICE 1):
> 1) Not change/update the existing RFC7084.
> 2) Use my “Transition Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers”
> document (draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition-00) as a starting
> point, which “extend” the requirements of RFC7084 towards supporting actual
> world transition requirements.
> 3) In this updated document, the transition requirements can then be a
> MUST, so vendors take it seriously.
> 4) I will include the reference to RFC8026 (some more text, as this
> reference is already in all my docs regarding this topic), so there is a
> “flow” of how the pair “ISP-CE” can get working IPv6 and then IPv4 if it is
> available from the ISP “as a service”. I think this can have also what Fred
> was suggesting as “IPv6 must be on by default”, right?
>
> CHOICE 2 (to make it clear, my own toughs after waking up this morning,
> not discussed with the other folks yesterday):
> Same as choice 1 above, but include also support for HNCP and may be
> something else if we believe it is required during the development of this
> document (for example it seems clear that if we offer IPv4 as a service,
> because actual multicast-based IPTV services run on IPv4, we need to keep
> supporting that on top of an IPv6-only access).
> So then the document will be renamed to something such as “Transition and
> extended requirements for IPv6 CE routers”.
>
> Tim, Barbara, James, can you confirm if I got right choice 1, or
> misunderstood/missed anything?
>
> WG participants, could you provide your view on those two options?
>
> Tim (Winters), could you tell from the perspective of the IPv6 Ready Logo
> Program your view on those two approaches?
>
> It will be nice to be able to double check all the inputs from yesterday
> v6ops sessions, but looking at the etherpad I can’t see them, so may be the
> note takers were using something else. It is possible to access the minutes
> already someway? I will like to start working on this immediately …
>
> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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 use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>