Subject: RE: approach to moving forward w/ mechanisms [RE: Review requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt]

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:31:49 -0400

Very well stated Tony.  Everyone of those we have will be deployed and
used.  We probably still do not have all the mechanisms we need or can
possibly know as deployment evolves.  And some we believe in strongly
within the WG will not be used in all cases either.  There is no one
size fits all and there never will be. 
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tony Hain
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 6:20 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; 'Pekka Savola'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: approach to moving forward w/ mechanisms [RE: 
> Review requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt]
> 
> Unfortunately the drill appears to be fluid based on the mood 
> of a few people. According to the IETF chair when he was Ops 
> AD, technologies that will see widespread deployment and need 
> to be interoperable should be on the standards track. The 
> recent discussion about Experimental is an effort at a 
> political side step for the IESG. This appears to take them 
> out of the line of fire rather than accepting the reality 
> that the IESG can't decide what people will be allowed to 
> deploy. No matter how much they want to dictate to the 
> market, there will be technologies shipped and deployed 
> without their blessing. The longer they take to allow any 
> progress, the more likely it is that the technology 
> developers will declare the IETF irrelevant and just start 
> shipping code leaving the consumer to decide. Without 
> interoperability as a basis, the technology selection will 
> become a battle of marketing departments. 
> 
> We have a set of transition technologies that address the 
> needs of various existing deployed environments. There are 
> minor overlaps, but the core of each approach is not 
> discussed in competing proposals. Refusing to publish them 
> all is an attempt to dictate which environments are 
> acceptable and which are not. Clearly that was not done for 
> IPv4, or the environments undesirable to some would not 
> exist. Since they do, someone saw a clear need for it and our 
> job is to migrate the protocol version in that environment.
> Forcing network managers to change deployment models is 
> explicitly out of scope. Two years ago we stopped work so we 
> could explain the complexity of real networks to the IESG, 
> and now with those documents in hand we still can't move ...
> 
> The bottom line is that we need automated, brokered, and 
> manually configured tunnels that work with and without IPv4 
> nat in the path. We also need stateful & stateless 
> translators at various points in the stack, mechanisms for 
> handling IPv4 in IPv6-only networks, as well as the basic 
> transition mechanism of parallel IPv6 & IPv4 packet streams. 
> All of these approaches MUST be on the standards track, or 
> there is no point in bothering with the IETF since that 
> energy should be focused on marketing sooner rather than later.
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> > Behalf Of Bound, Jim
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 11:58 AM
> > To: Pekka Savola
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: approach to moving forward w/ mechanisms [RE: Review
> > requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt]
> > 
> > True.  My issue is did we agree on Proposed Standard?
> > 
> > On the other topic then lets move forward with ISATAP and 
> DSTM.   Both
> > should be on the IETF 59 agenda too.  I will commit to presenting 
> > where we are with DSTM and updated draft is coming now.  
> DSTM authors 
> > were under the impression our only option was Experimental. 
>  If Teredo 
> > can go to PS DSTm may want to ask the WG the same question.  It 
> > appears the drill has changed.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > /jim
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 2:38 PM
> > > To: Bound, Jim
> > > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > > Subject: approach to moving forward w/ mechanisms [RE: Review
> > > requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt]
> > >
> > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > > > If we accept this we need to move on all mechanisms not
> > > just Teredo.
> > > > I support moving forward on all of them.  PS is still 
> unclear to 
> > > > me and I thought we were going to suggest Experimental RFC?
> > >
> > > ("If we accept this" -- accept what?  There has already been 
> > > consensus for Teredo, so I'm not sure what acceptance you're 
> > > referring to.)
> > >
> > > This is really a more generic topic, so changing the subject.
> > >
> > > The intent all along has been to move on (or work on) the 
> mechanisms 
> > > with clearly required mainstream scenarios, based on the 
> analysis, 
> > > etc. -- you know the drill. In other words, there has always been 
> > > resistance to just moving forward with everything that has been 
> > > proposed or might be proposed.
> > >
> > > Now, at IETF59 there was consensus for policy that the authors of 
> > > those proposed mechanisms, even if there was no consensus 
> or clear 
> > > need for them, *could* publish them as Experimental or 
> Informational 
> > > through RFC editor if they so wished (including a very 
> strong note 
> > > that it is not an IETF activity, etc.).  This only applied to the
> > > *implemented* protocols, as far as they have been 
> implemented. I.e., 
> > > a way to document an implemented protocol for interoperability.
> > >
> > > The question how to move forward with the required 
> mechanisms, for 
> > > which there has been consensus, (currently, this list includes 
> > > Teredo and so-called BGP-tunnel), is separate from that.  
> That work 
> > > could be done as invididual submissions through ADs, 
> through a new 
> > > WG-to-be-formed, or through v6ops.  The category could be PS or 
> > > maybe experimental.  These issues have not become clear yet, 
> > > unfortunately.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves 
> king, yet the
> > > Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> > > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A 
> Clash of Kings
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> 
> 
>