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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mon, 14 March 2011 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F2E3A6D50 for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kPw3isg3gGBU for <addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 717893A6D31 for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 07:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost []) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2EE3epo006243 for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:03:40 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk p2EE3epo006243
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1300111421; bh=A4JlAvmjEqAZE611bAfHVax6HoU=; h=From:Subject:Date:To:Mime-Version:References; b=JcbgNSffGdPqvFRW9I3mWze8vYIpXpPZk/MxfBvFEklqSY6KtzncZR6puHo6capxb Wi+1jVHk/dPiN7fjOu1Wdf761hBGpe1bNOF0hZi57KkD1h33EzhMJvPYPGYkJYLJ/X wP+gYN1liqFcRdKd4UDI+CfmDDJsrC9fkxZUb1QU=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk []) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk []) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id n2DE3e1747912790yy ret-id none; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:03:41 +0000
Received: from dhcp-152-78-94-103.ecs.soton.ac.uk (dhcp-152-78-94-103.ecs.soton.ac.uk []) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2EE2Xox027259 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <addr-select-dt@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:02:34 GMT
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:02:33 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|42ef0028ae6b60b353da850a3ba9b1ebn2DE3e03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|53079FE5-7EC6-4BE9-97FB-BFB69A31107F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: addr-select-dt@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n2DE3e174791279000; tid=n2DE3e1747912790yy; client=relay,white,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
References: <53079FE5-7EC6-4BE9-97FB-BFB69A31107F@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p2EE3epo006243
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [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: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:02:24 -0000


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
- looks good to WGLC?

Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
- looks good to WGLC?

Solution approaches for address selection problems
- useful discussion of the classes of solutions
- currently expired

Considerations for IPv6 Address Selection Policy Changes
- 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?

Considerations of Address Selection Policy Conflicts
- useful discussion of how such conflicts could be handled
- currently expired

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.

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?