Subject: (ngtrans) Grenoble Interim NGtrans meeting and an immediate issue

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 11:42:42 -0800

NGtrans folk,

I've been slow to get to publishing results of the Grenoble ngtrans meeting
as I've been quite sick since I returned.

At an overview level, I would summarize the meeting as follows:

1. after a healthy review of all our mechanisms (Jim Bound helped a lot on
this) we came to the conclusion that we could not at this point eliminate any.

2. developed a list of characteristics of these mechanisms (for further
editing by the list and the various authors) to help us sort the mechanisms
as an aid to users for a set of documents on transition.

3. agreed to start a transition document set (only partly structured at the
moment) that would weave mechanisms and transition scenarios into a
roadmap, i.e., a useful way for use by the uninformed. I have gotten
numerous volunteers to help on this, and will circulate ideas on the
documents to list so we can all have a say in how many, what they
should/should not include, etc.

4. agreed to not use Experimental RFC, just Informational RFC, for our
transition mechanisms (other than RFC 1933 which is on Standards track).
The reason given, and discussed, is that the word Experimental has bad
connotations to the uninitiated wanting to assess where our transition
efforts are, while Informational does not have this connotation. This was
not meant to preclude more atomic subsets of these mechanisms, or other
future things, being put on Standards track.

The immediate problem I have is with 4. above, as Harald is processing the
SIIT draft through the IESG at the moment as Experimental. I've had email
from Harald and Bert with differing views of this change in processing
status. This made me realize that a wider ngtrans list discussion is
necessary to "ratify" what we said in Grenoble (or not if that be the wish
of the larger group).

So I've included their comments on this below, and would like to have
comments supporting and not supporting this as soon as possible so the IESG
know what to do to process SIIT.

Thanks,

Bob

===
>Date: Mon, 8 Feb 99 13:57:47 CET 
>From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]> 
>To: [email-masked], [email-masked] 
>cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]> 
>Subject: SIIT processing (ngtrans) - change from Experimental to 
>
>Ref:  Your note of Sun, 07 Feb 1999 00:05:58 +0100
>
>
>Subject: Re:   SIIT processing (ngtrans) - change from Experimental to
>
>
>Harald writes:
>> IMHO: THIS IS A WRONG DECISION.
>>
>> If you think transition mechanisms are ready for prime time, the right
>> disposition is PROPOSED STANDARD.
>>
>> Informational means "We think this is useful information to the community,
>> but we have no intention of endorsing it", or "We think this is good stuff,
>> but it belongs to someone else, so we can't change it".
>>
>> If we think people should use it, and it belongs to us, it belongs on
>> the standards track, and absolutely nowhere else.
>>
>> I'll be happy to argue with you on any suitable mailing list, but this
>> decision is just WRONG.
>>
>Harald, Bob stated that the WG will consider to submit some pieces
>for Proposed, so in that sense they do agree with you.
>
>
>At the other hand, the way I understand it, there are various transition
>mechanisms on the table, and some overlap each other. It depends on
>the various scenarios of transition as to which one someone will prefer.
>
>
>To me, it seems wrong to have multiple standards that partially
>overlap and some that take different approaches. So as far as I can
>determine, it the decision is OK.
>
>
>One of the things the WG wants to do is to make a grid of the various
>proposals and mapping which functionality they provide. That will
>show the overlaps and such. Once that is done, it would be good to
>check if there is a clear "winning scheme" that the WG may indeed
>want to put forward as PS.
>
>
>Also... it became clear to me once more, that it doesn't matter at
>all (as far as I can tell) what track we put RFCs on. Take a 100 people
>and they all have their own opinions... very oftend based on what suits
>them most at any particular point in time.
>
>
>> Sorry I couldn't be in Grenoble....
>>
>It would have been good to have you, your background in this area is
>much better than mine.
>
>
>Yet... I do not think the WG decided anything SERIOUSLY WRONG (IMHO).
>
>Bert

---

From: Tony Hain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:52:04 -0800

Harald,

I think we all agree that Experimental is the appropriate designation for
new proposals which need work, or time to achieve additional recognition and
support. What we are discussing is how and where to move a document when it
gains that support.

Your argument is rooted in your earlier statement that Informational is the
category for proprietary protocols. While that is ONE of the uses of
Informational status, another has more the flavor of 'we are not promoting
this, but if you are going to proceed, do it this way'. That is the context
of the additional documents. If we put them on the standards track it will
be confusing as to what the intended standard transition mechanism is.
Arguing that because Rip-2 is a standard that these need to be is just
silly. We should not be basing the disposition of our documents on arguable
judgement calls in the past, we should be looking at them in context and
what should happen to them going forward.  

What this boils down to is the scope of the term Standard. You are applying
it very narrowly as; anything WG controlled that requires two or more
parties to have a consistent implementation. I would take the broader view
that; in the overall context of mechanisms for transition, the standard
approach is X.  Other approaches may be applicable to specific environments,
and information on how to accomplish those is provided in this set of
additional Informational documents.

======================================================
Tony Hain			[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> 

-----Original Message-----
From:	Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Saturday, February 13, 1999 10:11 PM
To:	Steve Deering
Cc:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: (ngtrans) Grenoble Interim NGtrans meeting and an
immediate issue

At 15:09 12.02.99 -0800, Steve Deering wrote:
>Harald,
>
>I think things are not quite as clear-cut as you present them.  Just
>yesterday, another IESG member said in a meeting, "When we publish
>something as Experimental, we are telling folks 'Don't implement this!'"
>That's not what we want to tell folks in this case.
>
>In the case of many of the IPv6 transition mechanism documents, they
>document useful transition/interoperation techniques that we will
>probably never standardize, but which we think people should feel
>fine about going ahead and using in their own environments, to the
>degree that they fit.  In fact, they are more like context-specific
>BCPs than experimental or standard protocols.

In a world where we standardize RIP-2 and the DHCP option for finding
your Novell Netware server, I don't see it logical not to standardize
the techniques for transition/interoperation that we think will work and
don't bias the operation of the whole network.

I've yammered about this earlier; when something CAN be used in a "corner"
of the Internet, and is genuinely useful, with no "known technical
deficencies"
in its intended scope (we all know where RIP-2 doesn't work), I don't see
the sense of not standardizing it.

I agree that we need to change policy. But the change to Info is NOT the
Right Thing for the IETF, IMHO.

                  Harald

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]