RE: [EXTERNAL] Conclusion of Adoption Call for <draft-templin-6man-omni-interface>

["Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Bob,

> This is not enough support to adopt this in the 6man working group, nor sufficient volunteers to form a design team. 

It is true that this statement is supported by the lack of responses on the list.

> There isn’t enough interest in this work to make it successful.

On this, I disagree. Insufficient volunteers to form a design team and/or
insufficient messages on the list does not necessarily imply lack of interest.

> We note that this document has been updated eighteen times since we started the adoption call, the current version is <draft-
> templin-6man-omni-interface-45>.

The document is now at draft-templin-6man-omni-interface-47, and has therefore
been updated twenty times since the start. Each update was necessary, and driven
primarily by *implementation experience* and secondarily by a push for completion.
As you know, draft updates are very easily tracked by competent engineers with the
rfcdiff tool and/or data tracker "History" button. The implementation is now very far
along and we are pushing for a public release before the end of the year. Running
code matters, and the draft now reflects what is possible in a practical implementation.

> The scope of the document has increased, it updates RFC1191, RFC3879, RFC4291, RFC4443, and
> RFC8201, as well as allocating a /10 of IPv6 address space

It is well proven that updates to these documents are possible.  For RFC1191, RFC4443,
and RFC8201 the "update" is to simply define a new Code value "1" in the message header.
For RFC3879 and RFC4291 the "update" is to simply un-deprecate the currently deprecated
fec0::/10 site local prefix (the /10 you mentioned) to make good use of an otherwise
wasted resource.

> Fred Templin described it on 6 Oct 2020 as a "next-generation IPv6-based Mobile Internet”.
> We think that this goes well beyond what was required by the ICAO liaison letter.

I told a truth, and I have shown that what is good for ICAO is also good for all forms
of worldwide air and ground transportation. For that, I am not sorry.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6 [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2020 5:55 PM
> To: IPv6 List <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Conclusion of Adoption Call for <draft-templin-6man-omni-interface>
> 
> This concludes the adoption call of <draft-templin-6man-omni-interface-27>.
> 
> There were four responses to the adoption call:
> 
> Tony Whyman <[e-mail]>
> "I am willing to join the design team."
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3O3KgczOZ-nRAHd3a0eWjdRbJ60
> 
> "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <[e-mail]>
> "I would like to join the design team of the OMNI draft."
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lcttbr96dVeaG1GTZuWQAhTci7Q/
> 
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
> "The document is very complete (-27!), and 6man should have adopted it awhile ago.   It being very complete is an issue for me.  This
> work has it's own external design team, and I guess the plan is that all of those people will form the core of an IETF/6man design team.
> But, actually I wonder if it shouldn't have it's own WG.
> erihttps://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Xv9IGt-KJKMbT-rfaXqBPzOUCY8
> 
> "Templin (US), Fred L" <[e-mail]>
> "Michael Richardson had the profound comment that maybe this would be a good use for the
> long-deprecated IPv6 SLA address range (fec0::/10). I think maybe he has a point, but I believe
> we would need the IETF to tell us that is the way to go - any thoughts?”
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yab4PFF4irzEaEWMKc83nYl0Tmc
> 
> This is not enough support to adopt this in the 6man working group, nor sufficient volunteers to form a design team.  There isn’t
> enough interest in this work to make it successful.
> 
> This document is not adopted.
> 
> We note that this document has been updated eighteen times since we started the adoption call, the current version is <draft-
> templin-6man-omni-interface-45>.    The scope of the document has increased, it updates RFC1191, RFC3879, RFC4291, RFC4443, and
> RFC8201, as well as allocating a /10 of IPv6 address space.  Fred Templin described it on 6 Oct 2020 as a "next-generation IPv6-based
> Mobile Internet”.   We think that this goes well beyond what was required by the ICAO liaison letter.
> 
> We have discussed this with our area directors.  They suggested that this work could be proposed as a BOF.   We think that this should
> be investigated due to its current scope and that it may broaden the set of people interested in working on it.
> 
> Bob and Ole
> 6MAN chairs
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 29, 2020, at 1:50 PM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > This message starts a two week 6MAN call on adopting:
> >
> > Title:          Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces
> > Authors:        F. Templin, A. Whyman
> > File Name:      draft-templin-6man-omni-interface-27
> > Document date:  2020-04-09
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-6man-omni-interface-27
> >
> > as a working group document. Substantive comments and statements of support for adopting this document should be directed to
> the mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This adoption call will end on 12 August 2020.
> >
> > It’s our understanding that the main focus of this work is for networking aircraft with IPv6.   There is a liaison statement from the
> Members of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) titled "The OMNI Interface - An IPv6 Air/Ground Interface for Civil
> Aviation”.  It can be found here:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1676/
> >
> > This provides a good summary of what the intent of this work is.
> >
> > The chairs note that this specification is much broader than a usual IPv6 over <Foo> specification, for example it proposes updating
> RFC4193, RFC4291, RFC4443, and RFC8201, and is in some ways defines a new IPv6 mobile architecture.   We believe is needs careful
> review by the 6MAN working group.
> >
> > The adoption question for the 6MAN working group is do we want to take on this work.   Once that happens, the w.g.controls what
> is included in the document.
> >
> > We think that a good way to proceed after adoption would be to form a design team which can review the requirements and make a
> recommendation to the 6MAN working group regarding which mechanisms should be standardized.  If you have the interest and time
> to participate in an OMNI design team, please include that in your response to this adoption call.   Getting enough volunteers for the
> design team is an essential part of adopting this document.
> >
> > Ole & Bob
> >
> >