Subject: [v6ops] Deborah Brungard's Yes on charter-ietf-v6ops-04-01: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:03:37 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-v6ops-04-01: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-v6ops/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I still find that last sentence difficult to parse "issues and
opportunities from these shutdowns have resulted in
innovations in network operation" e.g. if take the first
part, "issues in shutdowns resulting in innovations in
network operation" is doublespeak. I don't think ops
folks see their issues with such rose-colored glasses.
And the sentence seems opposite of the charter of the
working group, e.g. item #1 and #2, as the charter is
about identifying operational issues. If issues resulted
in innovations, we wouldn't need this group:-)

I'd suggest instead of "selling" the innovations of global
deployment in this sentence, rephrase it to be specific
on the charter goals. How about:
"An important aspect of IPv6 deployment has been the
operational issues with the shutdown of IPv4 networks
and operational interaction issues with IPv4 networks."

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:01:27 -0700

Warren: I need some advice from you on how to proceed. Ben, Spencer, and Deborah have commented and suggested text, and Suresh has suggested an additional charter item.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-v6ops/ballot/

Ben's suggested text is closest to the meaning I intended. An example of the kind of thing I had in mind was the concept of routing a /64 to a chassis (and routing to it using BGP as opposed to Neighbor Discovery), which is conceptually thought of as having an internal (or tethered) virtual LAN, and the containers or applications having addresses on that LAN. It is not that we have interesting opportunities in dealing with IPv4 networks, as Spencer suggested, but that we have new and operationally interesting network models that might not require the physical host to be different from a router, and might treat a container or an application the way we have treated a host in the past.

Suggested text for the interesting sentence:

NEW:
IPv6 deployment has resulted in the shutdown of IPv4 in some networks. Removing IPv4 constraints has resulted in innovations in IPv6 network operations.
END.

To Suresh's comment, the working group has not discussed this amendment, but I suspect would be agreeable to it. We have two drafts in the mill that would align with it.

NEW:
5) Document operational requirements for IPv6 networks.
END.

What do you want me to do?

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:56:23 -0400

> 5) Document operational requirements for IPv6 networks.

Yeah, I'd suggested (yesterday): "The group will also document basic
requirements for IPv6 CPE", but yours is (IMO) better.

> What do you want me to do?

Nothing -- I specifically hadn't made the changes to the posted text,
because that would create a new version (04-02), and we would lose all
of the current ballots - seeing as we have 5 "Yes" and 5 "NoObj" that
would be sad.

However, your proposed solution for Suresh involves adding a whole new
bullet point, which is (IMO) a significant enough change that it
probably makes sense for a new version to be pushed. I'll explain the
updates and assume that people will be happy to click the ballot
buttons again.
This is the first rechartering I've done, so I'm still feeling my way
around the process...

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:03:48 -0400

> updates and assume that people will be happy to click the ballot

Oh! I just made the edits and it did not lose the current ballots, so
that's all good.
I could have sworn that I'd seen the balloting get reset when others
updated charters under discussion.

> This is the first rechartering I've done, so I'm still feeling my way

As above :-)
W