Subject: (ngtrans) NGtrans Interim Meeting Agenda followup

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 18:36:42 -0800

NGtrans Folk,

Now that the agenda is published for the interim meetings, we would like to
be as clear as possible about the purpose set forth for the ngtrans portion.  

It is time to reassess the priorities and focus of the work going forward.
As discussed in Orlando, we will revisit the group charter to align it with
the current priorities, and clearly remove any remaining implications that
the group will be defining a transition plan for the Internet. 

To date the group efforts have focused on the detail of mechanisms, while
ignoring the 'how-to' guides that will describe how the mechanisms relate.
Now we are at a point where we (possibly) have too many tools, and haven't
yet really started on any planning information documents (e.g., that would
lay out transition scenarios or models and relate how our tools would
assist or work with them). 

We (the chairs) believe (and hopefully this is clear in our agenda) that to
move ahead we need to decide how to evaluate all of our tools and relate
them to transition scenarios/models. I don't believe that this means that
we should be getting full presentations on the various mechanisms (RFC
1933, SIIT, NAT-PT, AIIH, Bump-in-the-stack, IPv6/IPv4 Socks-based
translators, Dynamic Tunneling, 6over4, "TLA624", "tunnel broker"...) as we
wouldn't have the time at this meeting, and we have heard the details of
most of them more than once. 

Rather we should focus on how we would rate/evaluate/taxonimize transition
tools generically, and see if it works as a method to rate what we have so
far, and thus help focus our efforts.

To get this started before the meeting, we would like multiple volunteers
to work on two parts of this:

1. Develop a "taxonomy" or way to evaluate the transition tools,
specifically devloping the criteria that transition tools should be
evaluated [agenda item (2)].

2. Describe as many transition models/scenarios as seem reasonable that can
be used to help evaluate transition tools, and to focus on what planning
information I-Ds we should be working on  [agenda item (4)].

For agenda item (3) we don't want presenters, rather someone familiar
enough with the given technique/tool to help rank/evaluate against the
taxonomy.

Thanks,

Tony and Bob
your fearless ngtrans co-chairs

-----------------------------------------------
Wednesday, February 3 -- NGTRANS w.g. meeting 
----------------------------------------

Purpose:
The NGTRANS w.g. has developed a large set of transition tools 
including the original transition mechanisms (i.e., dual stack w/ IPv6 
over IPv4 tunneling), 6over4 without explicit tunnels, translation, 
and other tunneling techniques. The purpose of the meeting is for the 
w.g. to converge on a smaller set of tools and mechanisms.
The meeting will include discussing specific transition scenarios and 
evaluating how the current transition tools and mechanism work in 
these environments.

Agenda:
(1) Review NGTRANS mission and charter
(2) Develop a taxonomy for transition tools (who?)
(3) Review current transition tools and mechanisms
- Dual stack (who?) 
- Translation (who?) 
- 6over4 (who?) 
- Automatic tunneling (who?) 
- ...
(4) Discuss specific transition scenarios (who?)
- Private network case: (who?) 
- Public network case: (who?) 
- Issues to address in each scenario: (who?)
(5) Review analysis and converge on set of tools and mechanisms.

-end