Subject: Re: FW: Comments on draft-ietf-zeroconf-reqts-02

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:18:38 -0500

I'm sorry, but focusing on IPv6 for ZC networking seriously pidgeonholes
the constructive work which could be done in this WG. Serious consideration
should be given to getting this ZC stuff to work with currently deployed
IPv4 networks, as well as DHCP, whereas both will probably be around for
a long time.

- paul

At 05:20 PM 02/28/2000 +1100, Hesham Soliman (EPA) wrote:

>I agree, no one seems to be considering IPv6 in any of these discussions. 
>This is despite the fact that Home networking  would be a perfect market 
>for it, considering that it basically solves half the problems in the 
>charter of this WG.

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:33:56 +0100 (MET)

> >for it, considering that it basically solves half the problems in the 

The charter says we discuss and address both IPv4 and IPv6.

Erik

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:40:29 -0500

>The charter says we discuss and address both IPv4 and IPv6.

Discussing is one thing, crafting ZC to be more "IPv6 friendly"
is another. You're missing my point, I think.

The chater simply says, "This working group will address both
IPv4 and IPv6."

I don't understand why the charter cannot be modified such that
IPv4 and IPv6 can both be discussed, but are not tied together
in such a way so that we get bogged down in IPv6 cruft. In fact,
there should be no reason why we cannot do both, but address
both v4 and v6 as separate issues? They are indeed different.

Other working groups have (and rightly so in my opinion) focused
on IPv4 functionality first, and IPv6 functionality "later".

Or is this a "one size fits all" approach? I think this needs to
be clarified so that we can move ahead.

- paul

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:18:13 +0100 (MET)

> be clarified so that we can move ahead.

There is very little discussion in the requirements which is IPv6
specific at this point.  This is largely because we haven't worked
hard on IPv6 issues.

I don't think we've been bogged down yet.  There are surely issues to
consider there (multicast scoping, router discovery, neighbor discovery,
etc. are all different and may have implications).  

Are you suggesting that we partition the requirements (and subsequent
'profile') work into two tracks?  This would mean minor document 
reorganizationand also a call for more document editing work. If we 
completed "IPv4 requirements" and "IPv4 profile" docs, not being done 
with the IPv6 work would prevent us from publishing.

The question is who wants to work on the IPv6 side at this time?  If
you are one of them, please give the current document a full review and 
send comments on what needs to be done from an IPv6 perspective.

Erik

---

From: Paul Ferguson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:33:46 -0500

At 01:18 PM 02/28/2000 +0100, Erik Guttman wrote:

>'profile') work into two tracks?

Well, not necessarily, although I'm unsure on how to lessen the
interdependences between v4 and v6 in the WG.

>   This would mean minor document

Actually, I'm more concerned about IPv4 functionality.

- paul

---

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:33:31 -0800

At 6:40 AM -0500 2/28/00, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>in such a way so that we get bogged down in IPv6 cruft.

Methinks it is the IPv4 cruft that constitutes most of the bog here.

Steve