[lisp] Mostly pointless argument about V6 transition

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "David" == David Meyer <dmm at 1-4-5.net> writes:

    David> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 05:25:24PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
    >> >>>>> "David" == David Meyer <dmm at 1-4-5.net> writes:
    >> 
    David> Understand that you are speaking as an individual; however,
    David> are you stating your points above are reqired either by the
    David> IETF and/or by the WG? That is, are you Experimental RFCs
    David> should not be developed when there are other solutions in
    David> the same general space?
    >> 
    >> We have a fairly specific charter for why we're developing
    >> LISP.  I don't think easing IPv6 transition is part of it.

    David> 	Ok, fair enough. However easing v6 transition was just
    David> used as an example. 

Right.  And I was basically saying I didn't think it was a good
example for why PETRs would be deployed in the right places.  I was
not in that message commenting on whether I think PETRs are a good
idea for interworking.  In a later message I commented that I don't
know if they are a good idea because I don't understand the security
or deployment issues.

[We both agree interworking is in the charter.]

    David> 	That stipulated, note that the title of the
    David> Interworking Draft is "Interworking LISP with IPv4 and
    David> IPv6". 

Hmm, I've always read that draft to be about how LISP works with
non-lisp sites on both V4 and V6 networks.  I have not read that draft
to be about how LISP is used as a cross-protocol transition mechanism.
I agree that some of the mechanisms described in the interworking draft
do make it easier for LISP to be used as a cross-protocol mechanism.
I just re-read the abstract of that draft and as far as I can tell it supports my reading of the purpose of the draft.
So, I'm quite happy with the scope of the draft and the charter.



    >> I prefer that when we do work on a problem that we try and
    >> think about v6 transition.

    David> 	Please clarify. I couldn't parse that in the context
    David> of the rest of your note.

I do below; here's an example where I think thinking about V6 transition is good:


    >> So, if we do PETRs, we should make them friendly to transition.

    David> 	Of course, I think everyone wants that.

OK, so we're on the same page here.  That's the sort of issue I'm
talking about when I say when we do our work we should think about
transition.

    >> However, since we're not in the transition business, we
    >> shouldn't do PETRs simply for transition.

Restating: If the only reason to create PETRs were that we needed to
do so in order to make LISP a better mechanism for v6 transition, then
I don't think we should do so.  Note that no one is claiming PETRs are
only for transition.  More to the point, I think if your example about
why PETRs will be deployed is only about transition, then I personally
believe that we should work on better deployment examples.


    David> 	Again, you've just asserted something that is neither
    David> supported by the charter or any consensus call that I know
    David> of.

Yes. It's true.  Remember that I said I was stating my own individual
opinion--as an individual contributor *not* as a chair.  The IETF is
kind of frustrating, but so far, it has not yet driven me to a point
where I have enough internal disunity that I need to make consensus
calls inside my own head before deciding what I think.:-)

In all seriousness, I think in some of the cases where you claim I
made assertions, I did provide enough support that I think I
contributed to the discussion.  I did not provide enough support to
make any comment as a chair; nor did I intend to.

This has all been blown way out of proportion though: I was trying to
say that I wish Darrel would focus on giving deployment examples
related to interworking.  Sorry it turned into such a mess.