Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Hi Dale,
Thanks for your feedback.
Please find my answers inline tagged as [GF].
Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Dale W. Carder
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 5:57 PM
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

Thus spake Nick Hilliard (nick@foobar.org) on Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:37:04AM +0100:
> Ron Bonica wrote on 02/06/2021 19:11:
> > This message initiates a call for adoption on 
> > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment. Please post messages expressing 
> > your position on adoption and rationale by 6/16/2021.
> 
> I'm struggling with this document. It looks like an aggregation of 
> three separate things: a copy / rewording of chunks of ETSI White 
> Paper 35, an operator survey with some results and the "Call for 
> action" section, a set of suggestions on how to improve matters.

That was my observation from last October as well, and I think it still applies for me as I take another read pass through it.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Wokx6bH3Xvf0sAwqV3Q7JhGRgME/

[GF]: As co-author of ETSI WP 35, I disagree. To avoid repeating myself, I already highlighted in the two emails below the differences:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/DTM96W0CyA6n-6NIIw5Iaiwh9Cg/
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/IxijU1psR6uqTDYJDcMfbValUg0/

from Nick,
> The "Call for action" section has potential promise and would benefit 
> from being moved to a separate document which discusses considerations 
> for / impediments to IPv6 adoption.

I would agree, but to pull this off effectively, I would expect that there would be adequate citations and references to back up the claims.

[GF]: As said when answering the previous email, we would thoroughly revise this section and, consequently, change the title into "common challenges of the IPv6 transition". Since this section was extended over time due to the comments from the IETF community, our idea is to make it more effective and highlight only the key message for each topic.  

In it's current form, I still don't see the purpose of the document as abundantly clear, and I don't see this draft progressing through the WG in any sort of timely manner.  Perhaps splitting it up could help but I am not sure.

[GF]: Let me clarify the purpose of the document. The authors would like to describe the current status of the IPv6 deployment globally. The idea is to report both public data and statistically meaningful surveys among operators/enterprises. All this allows to identify the common challenges and therefore, make the community aware and stimulate more contribution. Considering the concerns, it seems not clear. We can surely restructure the draft (sometimes less is more) and improve its readability in the next versions. In the last version we made a lot of changes to address the number of inputs from the community and, this may also have affected the clarity.

Dale

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops