<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 5 Jan 2011, at 14:52, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 5.1.11 15:38, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">I can only applaud the work that Jan and team has done with RIPE-501. It<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is a good initiative and will help people<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">get the best bang for their bucks within Europe. (and yes... it makes<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">live a vendor slightly harder and in some<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">way easier as it helps us prioritize.<br></blockquote><br>Thnx :)<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Absolutely, it's a really useful text. One of the IPv6 issues that has come up in the JANET community is how to obtain good independent advice on IPv6 requirements to include in procurements. Those requirements are much broader than for other 'new' technologies, and both include 'like for like' features for IPv4/IPv6 and new IPv6-specific features.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite">The recommendations in there are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">already quite in sync with other certifications<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for targeted 'very very' big vendor customers of vendors, so it is no<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">surprise). What we (me and Cisco) have been seeing is users<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">confused and ask for everything of RIPE-501, and that is an important<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">reality check.<br></blockquote><br>True. We need to fix that.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Fair point - RIPE-501 has some excellent suggestions, pointers and info in it, and not everyone will want everything. Though the primary audience is government and large enterprises. Vendors can still continue to prioritise feature releases based on the NIST and IPv6 Ready initiatives.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">What I would like to see in addition to the current RIPE-501, and I have<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">been discussing this thought process with Jan already 1-2-1<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is to make the document slightly larger, and add focus for common user<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">scenario's... like NREN, University, small enterprise, medium<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">enterprise and big enterprise, and then also for ISP tier-1 -2 -3 ... I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">am not sure he is convinced, however I hope he is :-)<br></blockquote><br>This is getting complex. I am convinced we need to do that, but not sure how to do that in order not to confuse readers even harder.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Well, the flow export feature is just one that is likely to be desirable in large enterprise networks, and is certainly an issue I and others have raised when talking to vendor(s). Of course it's just one feature, and not a make or break one :) </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>What is crossing my mind in this moment is online web application, where you start with selecting "I would like to choose my role (NREN, Eneterprise, ISP, ...)" or "I would like to specify by equipment type".<br><br>...<br><br>Would this ease the selection process? If we need selection process that complex, than paper is not the right media, but online app would be nice choice.<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I think this would be a significant amount of work. I suspect the better approach is for some volunteers in appropriate communities to take RIPE-501, advertise it to those communities, and provide some suggestions as to which requirements are priorities for that community, e.g. for campus enterprise networks. There will, following the Option 1 model, be some (though not many) mandatory and optional features that have different priorities in that environment, or a small number of features that are missing and can be added. RIPE-501 provides a very nice foundation for such guidance. Whether vendors like what is in that guidance shouldn't really be a concern :) </div><div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div></div></body></html>