Subject: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:17:07 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

(co-chair hat on)

During the IESG review of the 3GPP analysis document there was a 
comment wondering its intended BCP category:

=====
>    The scope of this Best Current Practices document is to analyze and 
>    solve the possible transition scenarios in the 3GPP defined GPRS 
>    network

Scenarios aren't things you *solve*; they are things you *describe*. I
would see no objection to this as an Informational, but I think it
(and its future companion documents from v6ops) are hardly BCPs. There
is surely no current practice on which to base the assertion that this
draft describes the Best.
=====

The initial plan (which never had much justification) had been to
publish the Scenarios documents as Informational, and analysis
documents (describing the best understanding of the recommended
deployment approaches) as BCP(s).

As far as I can understand, the reason why BCP seems inappropriate is 
because the documents might not be for example:
 1) not clearly describing _current_ practice (i.e., when there has 
    not yet been sufficient deployment, but only analysis), or

 2) not clearly describing _best_ practice (i.e., if the document is 
    not sufficiently detailed to pick among the alternatives, etc.)

On the other hand, BCP would seem appropriate if the description is
detailed enough, and/or current enough so that we can justify that it
is actually already both a _current_ and _best_ practice.  In a way,
BCP also sends a stronger message to the community on the
recommendations (whether that is relevant or necessary is another
question).

Now, as there can be arguments for both ways, it would be useful to
see if there are preferences about this in the WG:

 a) continue with BCP category,

 b) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational and consider the rest in 
    case-by-case basis (whether Info or BCP).  Some other analysis 
    documents may or may not fall better under the BCP category, or

 c) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational; take the rest to 
    informational as well.

Opinions?  a), b), or c)?

(co-chair hat off)

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:42:28 +0200

Hi Pekka,

I believe is very difficult to take a general rule, even when talking only about scenario documents, and even when I could agree, in general, with your rationale.

I will like to heard the rational from the authors. I think will be useful (I know they have actually used in the document BCP).

We have a similar problem with the rest of the WG (and some individual) documents, since a long time ago, and we have talked about some options in the last meeting, but now sure if the decision and process is clear enough.

I think looking to all this we can take a more clear and open decision.

Regards,
Jordi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: Scenarios analysis documents: BCP vs Informational?

>  c) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational; take the rest to 

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

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:53:53 -0700

>  c) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational; take the rest to

c)

	- Alain.

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:25:38 -0400

all informational. 

Marc.

>  c) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational; take the rest to 

------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:36:58 +0200

>>  c) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational; take the rest to

I agree.

(Truth in advertising: I was Harald's reviewer who made the
original comment.)

     Brian

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:56:35 +0100

>  c) publish 3GPP analysis as Informational; take the rest to 

While BCP should be just that, the analyses miss the P on a big scale, so
I also agree Informational, with maybe in 12-18 months a BCP update once
we see which methods win out?

Tim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:15:49 +0300 (EEST)

> we see which methods win out?

At least for the ISP analysis document, I believe it quite accurately
describes _Best_, _Current_ and even _Practice_ :).

At least to the degree of how you deploy your core network (customer
access networks w/ tunneling is still behind..).

-- 
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: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:23:28 -0400

I think c) is the best choice...

- Ralph

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:26:26 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

(co-chair hat on)

Based on the responses, it seems clear that the WG rough consensus is
to use Informational for all the analysis documents.  Let's go forward
with that.

Thanks for feedback!

(co-chair hat off)