[Bp_ipv6] Call for Comments for Contents of the "Problem Definition/Introduction" [ Before Mon 8th June UTC2:00am]

Izumi Okutani izumi at nic.ad.jp
Fri Jun 5 11:29:18 EDT 2015


Hi all,


Thanks for your inputs on the point for further discussions after our 2nd call.

This is the summary of what I see as comments on the mailing list:

So far, several participants have expressed not to add "Suggested different stages of adoption". The reasons explained on the mailing list are as below.

* Question about relevance to cover in this group:
- This is the best practices on creating an environment to encourage IPv6 adoption, not IPv6 adoption itself.
- The suggestion has more specific technical elements. It could fit in a document that would describe technical behaviours/deployments of IPv6.   
- There is no one size fit all solution. IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique elements to be considered.
- Given the timelines, we are getting too broad and too deep into certain areas.
- This is already covered in the technical community. We should avoid any duplication of work. 

* Suggested way forward
- As we already seem to agree there are different stages, we can always discuss doing a follow up later if we find that there is something missing from the greater picture.
- After considering the points expressed, if this BP document still wants to include some simple messages for the technical community, it can be focused on a very high level information (Specific text 
suggestion has been shared). This type of text can be stated in a latter part of the document, not in the introductory part.
- We probably have documents describing both X and Y in detail, where this effort could become useful is to identify ways to make sure these dependencies can be resolved by coordinating between the different actors and stakeholders, which fits neatly in the bigger IGF picture of binging everybody together.

Thanks again to everyone who have shared your inputs. 

So far, I have not (yet) seen reasons explained to support adding this description. 
I continue to welcome comments on this point.

I have listed what have seen as expressed on the mailing list after the 2nd call but if anyone has different observations, please feel free to share it here.
If you have different thoughts from the comments expressed already, don't be afraid to share it and it would be helpful for our discussions if you could explain your rationale as well.


Thanks,
Izumi

On 2015/06/05 16:20, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Sorry I was unable to join the call, currently busy at EuroDIG.
> 
> I agree with Miwa to the point we should avoid any duplication of work.
> 
> I also support the idea to limit it to the environmental support. As Miwa mentioned, there is no one-size solution and certainly wouldn't want this document to leave people with the impression that there might be.
> 
> Also looking at the timelines and resource constraints we probably face, I think we are getting to broad and to deep into certain areas. As we already seem to agree there are different stages, we can always discuss doing a follow up later if we find that there is something missing from the greater picture,
> 
> As to the problem statement itself, maybe we include something regarding "creating the right environment that allows for coordination between different actors in the Internet value chain". One of the bigger issues we seem to keep being confronted with are the "X has to do this, so I can do Y" and this is where things get stuck.
> 
> As with Miwa, we probably have documents describing both X and Y in detail, where this effort could become useful is to identify ways to make sure these dependencies can be resolved by coordinating between the different actors and stakeholders, which fits neatly in the bigger IGF picture of binging everybody together.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Marco Hogewoning
> External Relations - RIPE NCC
> 
> (Sent from a touch screen)
> 
>> On 5 Jun 2015, at 01:06, Miwa Fujii <miwa at apnic.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Izumi and Susan,
>>
>> Thanks for chairing yesterday������s tele-conference. Thanks for this summary
>> as well.  I think it captured well what we discussed.
>>
>> Just one small clarification from my end.  Pls see my comments below in
>> lines. 
>>
>>> [For Further Discussions]
>>>
>>> On different stages of adoption suggested as the problem definition,
>>> there was a comment that a general status description would be helpful.
>>> At the same time an observation was made whether this is something to be
>>> covered as the problem definition. A suggestion was made for an
>>> alternative contents to cover. Miwa - would you mind to re-share what was
>>> share in the chat?
>>>
>>> Further, a suggestion was made to touch on this as future recommended
>>> steps as a message to businesses.
>>> I'd welcome your comments on the above discussions at the call and the
>>> way forward in handling this.
>>>
>>> Suggested different stages of adoption
>>> -    available
>>> -    preferred
>>> -    exclusive
>>
>> As mentioned in yesterday������s tele-conference, I think the above
>> information, i.e., Suggested different stages of adoption, is rather
>> outside of the scope of this BP document to be developed by this group.
>> As we discussed yesterday, I understand the main aim of this document is
>> to provide environmental support for IPv6 adoption.
>>
>> The above topic has more specific technical elements which have been
>> tackled by the Internet technical community for over the last decade. And
>> the efforts are still being made.  And there is no one size fit all
>> solution.  IPv6 adoption in each network has lots of individual and unique
>> elements to be considered.
>>
>> Having said so, if this BP document still wants to include some simple
>> messages for the technical community, then it can be focused on a very
>> high level information something like:
>>
>> ������Start testing IPv6 in your network now, and consider enabling IPv6 for
>> new subscribers as a default services.  This approach is one of proven
>> methods of successful IPv6 deployment among IPv6 adopters.������
>>
>> And this type of text can be stated in a latter part of the document, not
>> in the introductory part.
>>
>> I hope the above explanation provides some clarity what I mentioned
>> yesterday.
>>
>> Thanks again for your great work.
>>
>> Miwa
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Izumi on behalf of the MAG Coordinators
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
>>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org





More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list