Re: [addr-select-dt] Status of address selection related drafts?

Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net> Thu, 17 March 2011 05:08 UTC

Return-Path: <arifumi@nttv6.net>
X-Original-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAA4B3A6A50 for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.041
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vJWRxA2o1ZAK for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leo.nttv6.net (leo.nttv6.net [192.47.162.93]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC983A659C for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.nttv6.net [IPv6:::1]) by leo.nttv6.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2H54cFD042733; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:04:39 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from arifumi@nttv6.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Arifumi Matsumoto <arifumi@nttv6.net>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|42ef0028ae6b60b353da850a3ba9b1ebn2DE3e03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|53079FE5-7EC6-4BE9-97FB-BFB69A31107F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:16:30 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D2FDB757-0E7E-4B89-BC24-89D6B902122F@nttv6.net>
References: <53079FE5-7EC6-4BE9-97FB-BFB69A31107F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|42ef0028ae6b60b353da850a3ba9b1ebn2DE3e03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|53079FE5-7EC6-4BE9-97FB-BFB69A31107F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] Status of address selection related drafts?
X-BeenThere: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPv6 Address Selection Design Team <addr-select-dt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/addr-select-dt>
List-Post: <mailto:addr-select-dt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt>, <mailto:addr-select-dt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 05:08:41 -0000

Hi,

On 2011/03/14, at 23:02, Tim Chown wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just a quick mail to ask thoughts on what remains to be done in Prague for address selection drafts.
> 
> Update to RFC3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6
> draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
> - looks good to WGLC?

Yes, I think WGLC on this item should be started at Prague.

> Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
> draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-00
> - looks good to WGLC?

WGLC in pararel with rfc3484-revise should be fine.

> Solution approaches for address selection problems
> draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-03
> - useful discussion of the classes of solutions
> - currently expired

I feel, this time, the above two documents should be focused.

> Considerations for IPv6 Address Selection Policy Changes
> draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02
> - justification for the approaches taken for 3484 updates and dhcp-based policy distribution solution
> - currently expired - I will refresh it to active status - is it worth publishing?

If the first 2 documents go well, this document needs not necessarily published.

> Considerations of Address Selection Policy Conflicts
> draft-arifumi-6man-addr-select-conflict-02
> - useful discussion of how such conflicts could be handled
> - currently expired

This item explored advanced way of policy merging.
But, basically we've reached a conclusion that the any kinds of policy merging 
involves conflict, so the policy merging should be avoided by default.

> It's also worth noting that draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66-00, which we felt included many of the issues we were looking at in this DT, offered one way to take the work forward, but it has also expired.   This draft cites the DHCP policy draft.

This document was accepted as wg item in v6ops.

> So as it stands we look set to get the 3484-bis and DHCP policy drafts WGLC'd, but the other docs are all likely to lapse unless we decide there is useful discussion captured in them worth publishing.   
> 
> Did I miss any drafts? Thoughts?

Thanks for summarizing these up.


> 
> Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> addr-select-dt@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt