[IPv6crawler-wg] Fwd: Additional comments [ISOC Community Grants]

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Hello Sameh,

you ask:

>  Which I would say is a not-totally-overlapping set of what we plan to do.
>  And I was just wondering about how are we compared to others? and that I
>  wanted to know more about the state-of-the-art in ipv6 penetration
>  surveying. I mean our output should not be limited to statistics but rather
>  arguing about their novelty.

Indeed - and good question. I just realised that you did not get a copy 
of some of the correspondence pre-dating your involvement in the 
project. After I submitted the first proposal to ISOC Community Grants, 
I received an email back, appended to this message. It points out 
"similar" surveys already in existence. Please take some time in looking 
at them. We aim to surpass all of these by far.
My initial inspiration for the project came from the first survey

http://www.mrp.net/IPv6_Survey.html

But I was frustrated that this did not go far enough and was really too 
small scale and superficial to be useful in the long run.

The document "Appendix B" which I sent earlier was the response I 
supplied to Connie Kendig's enquiry. I was glad that ISOC asked those 
questions because it showed how much interest there is from them. The 
project is really significant in their strategy to "defend the Internet 
Ecosystem" (which I'll email on this list separately, in case you're 
interested).

I hope this helps,

Olivier

-------- Message original --------
Sujet: 	Additional comments [ISOC Community Grants]
Date : 	Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:14:11 -0500
De : 	Connie Kendig <kendig at isoc.org>
Pour : 	Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>



Hi Olivier.  I shared your project application with our Standards&
Technology team here at ISOC.   Given that IPv6 promotion is a key
technical area for ISOC, we would like to make sure that your proposed
work aligns with their goals and meets the standard of work they aim
to complete in this area.  Overall, the S&T team supports your
proposed work but it did leave them with a few questions and some
suggestions.  Given that you prepared the application while traveling,
and that ISOC fully supports the invigoration of your Chapter through
the successful implementation of this project, we propose to you to
address the below comments within 1.5 weeks' time (e.g. by 10 Dec) at
which point the selection Committee and our S&T team will review it
again.  One of two things will happen at that point: we will agree to
fund as submitted (with revisions) or we will urge you to re-apply
next round - those decisions will be in May 2010.  You may, of course,
at this time decide against revising your project now and opt to re-
apply without responding to the below.

See S&T's feedback:

[snip]

Given that:

o http://www.mrp.net/IPv6_Survey.html [which you've already responded
to]
o https://fit.nokia.com/lars/meter/ipv6.html
o http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi

already exist, we'd really like to see more value-add and originality
here before we agree to fund this.

Some questions that we think OCL still needs to answer:

o How will the list of domains per (cc|g)TLD be generated?
o What is the format of the machine-readable output?
o Will the scripts/code generated be made freely available?

We'd also like to see a lot more detail of the proposed testing, e.g.
- list of domain prefixes to be tested
- connectivity to port 80?
- SMTP transaction with MXs?
- etc.

Ways in which we think this effort could improve over existing reports
would include:

o identification of domains hosted behind IPv6-to-IPv4 webproxies
o identification of domains hosted on 6to4
o identification of domains with broken AAAA records (e.g. ::1,
192:192:168:168:1:1:1:1, IPv4-mapped)
o characterising latency differences between connectivity to A and
AAAA for a domain
o characterising MTU differences between IPv4 and IPv6 paths
o characterising hop-count differences between IPv4 and IPv6 paths
o characterising consistency of DNS information for AAAA records
o offering a programmatic interface to the data and archives

[snip]

We generally do not allow for such significant revisions/comments in
our selection process but we feel strongly about your abilities and
the potential implications for your Chapter.  Please let me know if
you are willing to address the above comments within the next 11 days
or if you would like to re-apply next round.

Best,

Connie


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://salsa.gih.co.uk/pipermail/ipv6crawler-wg/attachments/20100114/04f0be0c/attachment.html>