IPv6 Operations
charter-ietf-v6ops-05

[Ballot comment]
On the issue about whether to rewrite or omit the text regarding innovations resulting from v4 shutdown -- I agree with Deborah's position here that this kind of spin seems awkwardly out of place in the charter, and is unrelated to the work the WG will be taking on. My preference would be removing it.

[Ballot 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."

[Ballot 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 result 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."

[Ballot 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 result 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."

[Ballot comment]
I think this is ready for approval without external review.

I stumbled over the same sentence as Spencer. Since I went to the trouble to compose proposed new text before reading his, I'll include that here--but I'm okay with Spencer's suggestion as well.

Last sentence in the first paragraph:

OLD:
An important aspect of IPv6 deployment has been the
shutdown of IPv4 in some networks, and issues and opportunities from
these shutdowns have resulted in innovations in network operation
NEW:
IPv6 deployment has resulted in the shutdown of IPv4 in some
networks. These shutdowns have resulted in innovations in network
operations.
END.

[Ballot comment]
I am highly supportive of this charter but I want to make sure that one item is addressed. v6ops has traditionally worked on CPE router requirements and I do not see any mention of this in the charter. I would like to see some verbiage added in this regard.

[Ballot comment]
I'm a Yes, but I'm not a Responsible AD Yes.

The ballot tab says "ready w/o external review", but both questions are on the ballot itself.

I wouldn't object to external review if other people thought it was important, but I'm happier if people in other SDOs assume we're already looking at deployment experience :D.

The following is a nit, of course.

The last sentence in

"The global deployment of IPv6 is underway, creating an Internet
consisting of IPv4-only, IPv6-only, IPv4-IPv6 dual-stack, and
IPv6+translation networks and nodes. This deployment must be properly
handled to avoid the division of the Internet into separate IPv4 and
IPv6 networks, ensuring addressing and connectivity for all IPv4 and
IPv6 nodes.  An important aspect of that has been the shutdown of IPv4
in some networks, which has resulted in innovations in network
operation."

took me three reads to parse. If you think it could be more clear, I might suggest replacing it with

"An important aspect of IPv6 deployment has been the shutdown of IPv4 in some networks, and this shutdown has resulted in innovations in network operation".

And, now that I think I understand what is being said, I wonder if

"An important aspect of IPv6 deployment has been the shutdown of IPv4 in some networks, and issues and opportunities from these shutdowns have resulted in innovations in network operation",

matching your new goal #3 (issues, opportunities, innovations) might be clearer.

But Yes, please change the charter to do this work, however you describe it!

The changes are (IMO) very minor -- the actual change is that it allows the WG to consider "cool tricks" that can be done in a v6 only network.

The update was discussed with the WG (and we did some minor word-smithing in the v6ops meeting) - I think that this is small enough that it doesn't require external review, but if folk disagree I'm (of course) happy to have external review too...

[Ballot comment]
"Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the Working
Group only if there is a substantial expression of interest from
the community and if the work clearly does not fit elsewhere in the
IETF."

Slightly confused by "this scope". At first glance,  I thought about the entire charter, and then wonder about the meaning of "if the work clearly does not fit elsewhere in the IETF". I guess that the scope in question is the previous paragraph.
Simple solution: combine the paragraph with the previous one.

[Ballot comment]
Agree with Stephen that this seems fine to go ahead without external review, but also fine with it if external review is deemed necessary for some reason.

[Ballot comment]

Definitely ready for external review. Could also be just fine to re-charter,
not sure what's intended.

This is though a pretty vague charter and mostly seems to characterise
what won't be done instead of what is planned to be done. I'm ok with
that given that the WG seems to have a bunch of work to do and doesn't
seem to have gone crazy in the past.

[Ballot comment]
This looks like a fine revised charter. I had slight uneasiness about adding

"2.  Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
operational interaction issues with the IPv4 Internet, and determine
solutions or workarounds to those issues."

because I wondered if this will make v6ops more attractive for NAT proposals, but if that's the right thing to do, please do the right thing.

[Ballot comment]
Obviously this is not my area, but this looks like a fine revised charter.

I'd likely ballot Yes, if there was already a Yes ballot from the OPS area, but I don't want to be the "requires at least one Yes for approval" guy for work in another area.