Subject: IESG evaluation draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:23:32 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

The IESG approved the publication of 
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05.txt as is.

However, there were three minor non-blocking comments which might be
worth considering:

1)
[rhousley] [IN IESG DISCUSSION]
  Should VoIP be discussed in this document?  There are usually QoS
  issues associated with VoIP that deserve consideration.

2)
[hta] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART
Nit: Example Network B uses the word "external" twice with different 
meanings; that's confusing...

3)
[mrw] [IN IESG DISCUSSION] My affiliation is wrong in this document:  
s/ThinkMagic/ThingMagic.  Could be fixed in AUTH48 if at all.

3) is trivially fixed later on, so there's no need to worry about it
now.  The question is whether it would make sense to consider which
changes would be needed to fix 1) or 2) (or whether we just go on as
is).  If the fixes are simple, these could be done as an RFC-editor
note as well, without respinning the document.

-- 
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: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:47:10 +0200

>   issues associated with VoIP that deserve consideration.

I think that would be quite a substantial amount of work, so although
the comment is valid, I would recommend leaving it aside.

To be precise, I wrote:

> 
>>  Example Network B:
>>
>>  A bank running a large network supporting online
>>  transaction processing (OLTP) across a distributed
>>  multi-sited network, with access to a central database
>>  on an external network from the OLTP network.
>>
>>    - External connectivity not required.
> 
> ...
> 
> I can't quite reconcile "external network" and "external
> connectivity not required" - this needs a little clarification.

Maybe changing 'an external' to 'a different' would be enough,
and that can be done by the RFC-Ed.

    Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:20:14 +0300 (EEST)

> the comment is valid, I would recommend leaving it aside.

Couldn't that be (possibly) just "hand-waved" by adding one or two 
bullet points, e.g.:

 - does the site use VoIP or similar systems?  Does this require 
special QoS considerations?  Are the phones, backend systems, etc. 
upgradeable to IPv6?

i.e., give a lead, but not flesh it out?

> and that can be done by the RFC-Ed.

Would seem an OK (and simple) approach unless there are other 
thoughts.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:35:36 +0100

>   issues associated with VoIP that deserve consideration.

I don't think we need to add text about specific applications, as any
application the site runs fits under either "Enterprise Application 
Requirements" or "Enterprise IT Department Requirements" in Section 3.2,
the latter including QoS.

> meanings; that's confusing...

I suggest chnaging the first use of "an external" to "a remote" or
"a separately hosted".   I agree the different use of "external" on the
adjacent lines is a little confusing, in hindsight.
 
> s/ThinkMagic/ThingMagic.  Could be fixed in AUTH48 if at all.

That's an easy one :)
 
> note as well, without respinning the document.

I think these should just be made and the document pushed to RFC Editor,
as the changes are trivial and only typos rather than semantics.

Tim