Subject: IP version-independent app development guidelines?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 20:46:37 +0300 (EEST)

Hello all,

It seems that one of the charter items of this working group:

3. Publish Informational RFCs that help application developers
  (within and outside the IETF) understand how to develop IP
  version-independent applications.  Work with the Applications
  area, and other areas, to ensure that these documents answer
  the real-world concerns of application developers.  This
  includes helping to identify IPv4 dependencies in existing
  IETF application protocols and working with other areas and/or
  groups within the IETF to resolve them.

has seen little progress.

Thus, we'd like to solicit input on opinions how to proceed in this area.

At least one related individual submission exists in addition to some 
outside-of-the-IETF documentation:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-00.txt

 - do you feel this effort is something that we should be working on?
 - is this specific draft a good starting point for that work?
 - do you have ideas for other approaches which might be more 
suitable (in replacement or in addition to it)?

Obviously the abovementioned draft needs more work if the approach should
be pursued, but it would be nice to get a feel of the working group where
we should go first.

Thanks for your comments.

Pekka, Margaret & Bob

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 20:42:01 +0200

> has seen little progress.

Hmm I kinda recall a similar question some time ago ;)

> outside-of-the-IETF documentation:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shin-v6ops-application-transit
ion-00.txt
> suitable (in replacement or in addition to it)?

Yes, yes and see below.
 
> be pursued, but it would be nice to get a feel of the working group
where

Along with that draft a good pointer to documents looking like:

Implementing AF-independent application by Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh:
http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ 
(Mentioned as AF-APP in the References section)

and:
Eva M. Castro's "Porting applications to IPv6":
http://jungla.dit.upm.es/~ecastro/IPv6-web/ipv6.html

Are good starting points. Maybe these can be merged into one document?
Especially Eva's seperate examples make things much clearer than
in the current draft.

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 00:13:57 +0200

Hi Pekka, all,

I agree that this work is important, and is a good starting point.

As I'm not expert in the applications part, I forwarded it to people that is already working in applications, so they can try to
contribute.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 7:46 PM
Subject: IP version-independent app development guidelines?

> Thanks for your comments.

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on-line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 07:18:34 +0900

>http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/=20

	i wrote a book on the topic:
	'IPv6 network programming', ISBN 4-7561-4236-2 (in japanese)

	i'm negotiating w/ outside-of-japan publishers for english version.
	(i wrote it in english)

itojun

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:17:05 +0900

Hi Pekka

For the IPv6 Operation, application consideration should be considered.
It's a fit issue.

	Daniel
	Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Pekka Savola
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: IP version-independent app development guidelines?

Hello all,

Thus, we'd like to solicit input on opinions how to proceed in this
area.

Obviously the abovementioned draft needs more work if the approach
should
be pursued, but it would be nice to get a feel of the working group
where
we should go first.

Pekka, Margaret & Bob

---

From: "Eva M. Castro" <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 May 2003 12:00:49 +0200

> > suitable (in replacement or in addition to it)?

I think people is worried about network translation and not many
studies arise around application porting. From my point of view, some
porting applications guidelines should be described around the socket
API as a draft. The IPv6 extensions to the socket API are an RFC, but
not only strictly API changes should be considered but also all IP
depencies in the source code.

> Especially Eva's seperate examples make things much clearer than

I would be to glad to help and complete the previous porting 
application draft.

Regards,

eva

---

From: "Jeroen Massar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 12:23:02 +0200

> 	i'm negotiating w/ outside-of-japan publishers for english
version.

Maybe O'Reilly is a good one?
Otherwise I'll just have to learn japanese...
(Bye bye spare time that I didn't have already :)

hmm www.ascii.co.jp/books/detail/4-7561/4-7561-4236-2.html

The example PDF looks promising, I just can't make much out of it :)

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:08:15 +0900

> be pursued, but it would be nice to get a feel of the working group where

  I also feel this effort should be working on.

  Of course, this draft should get a broader view and needs more work.
  If there is a consensus, I will try to complete this draft (as a starting point).

  Thanks,
  Myung-Ki.