Re: [v6ops] v6ops charter update discussion

On 14/04/2015 17:19, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> 
>> Lee and I are reviewing the v6ops charter. I have attached a proposed charter and diffs against the current one. Joel has not
>> commented on this yet, and while we have run it by the sunset4 chairs, we haven’t gotten a reading from them. Sunset4 is
>> relevant because possibly the ipv4-as-a-service discussion would be better handled there. In this email, I’m soliciting
>> opinions in general.
>>
>> The charter update started with Lee feeling that the fourth bullet of our current charter, which reads
>>    4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze
>>       solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments,
>>       such as ISP Networks, Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks
>>       (Home/Small Office), and Cellular Networks.
>>       (http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/charter/)
>> is largely done. We know how to deploy IPv6.
> 
> Hm, while I generally agree with you, does this mean that these kinds of RFCs will be out-of-scope for v6ops going forward? I
> would hate for us to take this out of the charter and then turn people away when they show up with a document for a solution we
> didn't think of yet.

I agree that we should not exclude such work, and it could be that the
existing documents need corrections, but on the other hand the time
for soliciting new work in this area is past.

> Or perhaps paragraph 1 is enough to allow for capturing these kinds of documents?

Yes, because it mentions "solutions".

>>    4. Describe an operational roadmap to IPv6-only network deployment,
>>       with or without IPv4 delivered as an overlay or translation
>>       service.
> 
> Fully agreed.
> 
>> On another point, Lee and I have been discussing the operational reports we had at IETF 92, and feel that was time well spent.
>> Those had a common thread, which was the deployment of Softwire’s MAP-E and MAP-T technologies in their networks. We are
>> thinking about asking companies deploying IPv6 in Europe, Asia, and South America to make reports in the coming three
>> meetings, on their IPv6 deployments and the issues they face. Would that be of general interest? How would you propose to tune
>> that concept?
> 
> I think this is worthwile, as long as it's not going to be come a long list of 10-15 minute presentations saying the same thing.
> For those, we can keep it on the list. I always welcome operational reports in the meetings, but they need to contain news, not
> "we experienced the same thing as <foo> and solved it the same way".

Correct, and I don't think it needs to be strictly regional, although
that may be a travel optimisation. I would suggesting soliciting lightning
talks on ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de. There are handy messages there from
time to time, like
http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2014-December/010402.html

   Brian

> 
> I would like to hear from the ds.lite deployers out there, I know they exist. Also from 464XLAT+NAT64 deployments (probably in
> mobile).
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 