[Bp_ipv6] BPF on IPv6; Problem Definition
izumi at nic.ad.jp
Mon May 25 05:44:43 EDT 2015
Thanks for your suggestion and listing the options for defining IPv6
Listing both an ideal option and a practical choice like you have
outlined is a helpful approach, not only for this topic but for any
discussions for this group in general.
Based on the current suggested focus of this group to describe best
practices on creating an environment to encourage IPv6 adoption, does
anyone have any comments on Glenn's suggestion?
As a general reminder - as Susan has mentioned, a template of contents,
including "Definition of the Issue" is listed as a starting point of
discussions. You don't have to feel obliged to stick to this and please
free to make suggestions on this as well.
For example, we have discussed about motivation factor already – If we
want to incorporate it in the document, we could either describe it as a
part of “Definition of the Issue" or rename it/add a section such as
"Motivation Factor" or any other adequate title), as it best fits our needs.
On 2015/05/23 1:44, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
> May I also suggest as part of the problem definition we include
> What does adopt IPv6 mean?
> It can mean many things:
> It's available:
> - networks offer it as an additional option for traffic
> - devices/operating systems offer it as an option for traffic
> - services offer it as an option for connecting
> Or it could mean
> It's preferred:
> - networks offer it as the preferred option for traffic
> - devices/operating systems offer it as the preferred option for traffic
> - services offer it as the preferred option for connecting
> Or it could mean
> It's exclusive:
> - networks offer it as the only option for traffic
> - devices/operating systems offer it as the only option for traffic
> - services offer it as the only option for connecting
> Defining this is important, and I don't know for certain that everyone
> would answer the question the same way.
> Perhaps even a poll of our participants would be revealing in how we
> answer this.
> I will go first: my ideal goal is it's exclusive; my realistic choice
> it's that it's preferred.
> Sent from my iPad, please forgive any tpyos or auto connections
> On May 22, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Susan Chalmers <susan at chalmers.associates
> <mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>> wrote:
>> Greetings, all,
>> Thanks to all who joined us for the call yesterday. We are off to a
>> brilliant start. Three things:
>> *First, *I would like to introduce Wim DeGezelle, who will be
>> assisting us generally, and especially in collecting materials and
>> drafting the background and final documents for comment. Welcome, Wim.
>> Wim will be preparing minutes from our recent call, which he shall
>> circulate when ready.
>> In the meantime, the recording of the conversation is available here:
>> *Second, *on a procedural note, our first point of order is to create
>> the background paper by the end of June. The background paper should
>> form, to a large extent, the "preface" to the final paper.
>> In the background paper we should define the problem.
>> Recalling comments from the call, the problem definition - in it of
>> itself - will be of great practical value to the broader community.
>> Let us begin our discussion on the problem definition. To start, what
>> is the question that we are trying to answer, e.g.:
>> * Why is it important to adopt IPv6?
>> * What are best practices for creating an environment that enables
>> IPv6 adoption?
>> * ....?
>> The background paper should include this problem definition, in
>> addition to an outline of the planned table of contents.
>> *Third, *In terms of the table of contents, our starting point is the
>> template provided by ISOC. This can be changed to suit our purposes.
>> 1. Definition of the issue
>> 2. Regional specificities observed (e.g. Internet industry
>> 3. Existing policy measures and private sector initiatives,
>> 4. What worked well, identifying common effective practices
>> 5. Unintended consequences of policy interventions, good and bad
>> 6. Unresolved issues where further multistakeholder cooperation is
>> 7. Insights gained as a result of the experience
>> 8. Proposed steps for further multistakeholder dialogue
>> Perhaps we should start a separate email thread discussing this format?
>> In terms of scheduling, we'd like to host fortnightly calls starting
>> *June 3rd*. Here is the Doodle poll for selecting a time on the 3rd:
>> It would be lovely if you could fill in your preferences by close of
>> business on Monday.
>> Many thanks, and let's define this problem!
>> Susan Chalmers
>> susan at chalmers.associates <mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>
>> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org <mailto:Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
More information about the Bp_ipv6