Re: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns

I'm not going to have anything to say about the content, but you
should fix the first paragraph:

    The IETF / IAB has through the IAB liasion to Q.9/13, Scott Brim,
    received a general question on the future development of IPv6 in
    the IETF. The IAB/IETF has split this into a number of sub areas
    that we believe will be of interest and relevance to the work of
    Q9/13.

The liaison is actually from SG13 (not just Q9), and to the IETF as a
whole, directly, not through me.  The rapporteur of Q9 is the
technical contact, but the reply should be directed to SG13 as a
whole.  So I'd say something like

    In response to SG13's liaison (ref: TD 57 Rev.1 (WP2)) about the
    IETF's plans for future development of IPv6, the IETF thanks SG13
    and provides the following.

I hope that at least someone in the ipv6-dir knows how to use the
liaison tool.

Thanks ... Scott

On 12/21/2005 04:52 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist allegedly wrote:
> 
> On 8 nov 2005, at 18.59, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
>>
>> Is this something that the IPv6 directorate could prepare a  response to?
>> Any volunteers to take the lead on getting this together?
>>
>> Margaret
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:sbrim@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:17 PM
>> To: 'Margaret Wasserman'
>> Subject: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns
>>
>> Hi Margaret.  Please either (1) tell me which WGs or ADs to direct
>> this to, or (2) compile a list of RFCs/drafts yourself.  I'm grateful.
>> After we have a list I'll draft up a liaison for you.
>>
>> These are some specific things that Q.9/13 is concerned about.  What
>> the IETF should do is to send them a list of the relevant drafts and
>> RFCs, showing them how these issues are being addressed.
>>
>> I would do this myself but I'm not an IPv6 expert and I know I'll miss
>> something.  All we need is a list.
>>
>> - QoS signaling.  They want to be sure that they can efficiently use
>>   both the the transport signaling protocols (such as RSVP and NSIS)
>>   and the application signaling protocols (such as SIP) in an IPv6
>>   environment.  Relevant RFCs/drafts are those about how those
>>   protocols work over IPv6.
>>
>> - QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6.
>>
>> - General IPv4-IPv6.  They are wondering under what conditions
>>   application level gateways will be required.
>>
>> - Also list the structure of the flow label.  They are very interested
>>   in what it can be used for.
>>
>> - Multihoming with IPv6.  Nothing surprising here -- just list the
>>   latest cool stuff for multihoming (both site and host).  They like
>>   SCTP.
>>
>> - Mobility.
>>
>> - MPLS and IPv6.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok attached is what I have written so far. Apologies for the Word 
> format. I think John has been volunteered (and agreed to) to write  the
> text on QoS and signalling. I think he might want to read what I  wrote
> on the flow-label use as well. Loa has said he could write  something on
> the MPLS bullet, but I have not yet got any text from  him. Perhaps
> someone else in here can contribute? As for the ALG use,  I didn't write
> much but my personal opinions. Not sure of the rest of  the ipv6-dir
> want to add more. Last, if someone on ipv6-dir could  write something on
> mobility that would be great. It occurred to me  that we have a mobility
> directorate and I am sure they can write that  better than me anyway :-).
> 
> I'd be happy to write more if needed. As for the format and text etc,  I
> am sure Scott can make that look as it should.
> 
> Last question, if this is a lisaon statement, I guess we want to send 
> it pass the IAB as well.
> 
> - kurtis -

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
ipv6-dir@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir