Subject: Re: draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:44:28 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

I was solicited to send comments on this so here we come.

This sounds awfully familiar to the scenarios/analysis work we did 
some 5-7 years ago back here, though goal seems to produce more 
detailed, and more future-proof documents.  A challenge here is that 
information, in order to be useful requires including vendor-specific 
and/or configuration detail which may be issue from multiple 
perspectives.

I applaud any and all such work, but I will note that I'm somewhat 
skeptical of another IETF effort in this front.  The previous 
experience was a challenge enough.

I wonder if similar goals could be met by working on documenting these 
in a wiki. Write drafts if it helps focus discussion, but turning the 
crank to produce 10+ RFCs that will get outdated soon enough doesn't 
seem like worth the effort.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:07:18 -0700

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> wrote:
> This sounds awfully familiar to the scenarios/analysis work we did some 5-7
> years ago back here, though goal seems to produce more detailed, and more
> future-proof documents.  A challenge here is that information, in order to
> be useful requires including vendor-specific and/or configuration detail
> which may be issue from multiple perspectives.
>
> I applaud any and all such work, but I will note that I'm somewhat skeptical
> of another IETF effort in this front.  The previous experience was a
> challenge enough.
>
> I wonder if similar goals could be met by working on documenting these in a
> wiki. Write drafts if it helps focus discussion, but turning the crank to
> produce 10+ RFCs that will get outdated soon enough doesn't seem like worth
> the effort.

I completely agree.  A wiki would be more timely, relevant, and
accessible. The reality of the IETF is that the people doing tactical
deployment and testing don't care what the RFC / SDO says (IPv6
mandatory in 3GPP IMS ....).  Many operators just write an RFP for
what they want.  In my experience, vendors build to RFP, not RFC.
Just think of how many RFCs have never shipped in production code.

The danger is that once an RFC is written, regardless of standards
track, working group, or not .... it then becomes a reference to
justify all kinds of things that are very unnatural and unintended,
especially when we are talking about thins other than protocol
specifics.

The fact is, in rolling out my own (IMHO wildy successful) pilot, i
used wikis and search engines (for NANOG presentations...) , books,
and manuals, not RFCs.  I think this is how most hands on folks
operate.  RFC are only involved when going after a vendor for bugs,
interoperability, and features.

Most telcos are big companies with lots of resources.  How the
resources are handed out is another matter entirely, and the IETF
cannot help there either.

Cameron

ps.  Sorry if this is more of a rant about the suggested
v4v6transition working group than this individual draft.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:36:09 +1200

Pekka,

Thanks. Yes, this is not so different from the earliest goals of v6ops,
but the difference now is that we have many ISPs who are strongly
motivated, and also a clear understanding that the address runout is
visible within current planning cycles.

Personally I don't believe that a wiki is going to meet the needs.
Wikis can and do serve as useful repositories and I'm all for them,
for reasons that Cameron has stated in his message, but they are not
solid enough for the target audience. We need both.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2010-08-31 03:44, Pekka Savola wrote:
> This sounds awfully familiar to the scenarios/analysis work we did some
> 5-7 years ago back here, though goal seems to produce more detailed, and
> more future-proof documents.  A challenge here is that information, in
> order to be useful requires including vendor-specific and/or
> configuration detail which may be issue from multiple perspectives.
> 
> skeptical of another IETF effort in this front.  The previous experience
> was a challenge enough.
>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 08:37:34 +0900

> experience was a challenge enough.

those who do not remember ngtrans are doomed to repeat it.

> seem like worth the effort.

agree.  my guess is that documentation is either un-useful pontification
which lacks detail or is useful but ephemeral.

randy