Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:13:53 +0100

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenARTfaq).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-00.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 9 August 2010
IETF LC End Date: 5 August 2010
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary:
A useful snapshot of the ISP situation.  Pretty much ready apart from a couple of pieces that ought to be clarified.  However a couple of parts of the document are awash with acronyms/jargon for techniques that do not have clear references to RFCs where they are defined.  

Major issues:
None.

Minor issues:
There are a large number of IPv6 jargon terms in the draft.  A glossary and pointers to the places where they are defined would be useful both for this draft and for others in future. Section 2.5 is particularly densely populated but other places also suffer - maybe they could be tied back to RFCs mentioned in s1.

s4.3, third bullet:  It would be good to understand *how* ISPs apparently misunderstand tunnel brokers if that is what is meant.  The comment in the appendix indicates that they misunderstood the question rather then the technology.  Please clarify.  

Nits/editorial comments:
s2.5, last para:
>    Asked about plans for Mobile IPv6 (or Nemo mobile networks), 19% said
>    yes, and 71% said no, with the others uncertain.
Plans to do what with Mobile IPv6?

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:29:17 +1200

Hi Elwyn,

Thanks. This is on the agenda this week, so let me respond quickly:

On 2010-08-10 03:13, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team
> (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART,
> please see 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
> comments you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-00.txt Reviewer:
> Elwyn Davies Review Date: 9 August 2010 IETF LC End Date: 5
> August 2010 IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> 
> Summary: A useful snapshot of the ISP situation.  Pretty much
> ready apart from a couple of pieces that ought to be
> clarified.  However a couple of parts of the document are
> awash with acronyms/jargon for techniques that do not have
> clear references to RFCs where they are defined.
> 
> Major issues: None.
> 
> Minor issues: There are a large number of IPv6 jargon terms
> in the draft.  A glossary and pointers to the places where
> they are defined would be useful both for this draft and for
> others in future. Section 2.5 is particularly densely
> populated but other places also suffer - maybe they could be
> tied back to RFCs mentioned in s1.

Fair comment, but quite a bit of work, so we will wait for
instructions.

> s4.3, third bullet:  It would be good to understand *how*
> ISPs apparently misunderstand tunnel brokers if that is what
> is meant.  The comment in the appendix indicates that they
> misunderstood the question rather then the technology.
> Please clarify.

We intended the question to mean: will you operate a tunnel
broker of some kind for your customers? It was pretty clear from
the replies that many people understood us to mean: will you use
a tunnel service provider (such as Hurricane Electric) to
provide v6 connectivity? So there was no way to analyse the
mixture of replies that we got. Of course, we can explain this
better (in the Appendix, I suppose).

> 
> Nits/editorial comments: s2.5, last para:
>> Asked about plans for Mobile IPv6 (or Nemo mobile
>> networks), 19% said yes, and 71% said no, with the others
>> uncertain.

The raw question was
"34. Any plans for Mobile IPv6 (or Nemo mobile networks)?"

In retrospect that was an underdefined question, so I don't
think there is really an answer to Elwyn's question,
unfortunately. We can tidy up the wording.

(Not an excuse, but an observation: it's hard to get survey
questions right first time, and it was quite impractical to run
the survey on a test group of ISPs first - it was heavy lifting
to get as many as 31 replies at all).

    Brian