RE: Interested in wireless ?

Dear chairs;

We have had a long thread on the adoption of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless.
I have seen only supporting comments, and even a path for a proper RFC type indicated by Brian below.
But I have not seen the action on your part.

It would be nice to make the call for adoption now so we could discuss the result at one of the IETF virtual meetings.
What do you think?

Pascal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Sent: lundi 1 juin 2020 01:21
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>
> Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: Interested in wireless ?
> 
> Pascal,
> 
> There is a category of standards track documents foreseen in RFC2026 called
> "applicability statements", described at
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026#section-3.2
> 
> I think that is perhaps where your draft could fit. A little bit stronger than
> Informational and little bit different than Best *Current* Practice.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> On 01-Jun-20 04:40, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > Hello Brian
> >
> > We may have to split the doc but for the most part I agree it is an
> informational.
> >
> > For now I suggest to just change the intended status accordingly and aim at
> BCP or something.
> >
> > Let’s discuss in parallel the coexistence and if there’s a need for an std track
> somewhere. There’s at least the use of a 6LBR for address looking up in
> unicast.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Pascal
> >
> >> Le 30 mai 2020 à 22:47, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I believe that this is an important topic that 6MAN should take up. The draft
> is a good basis.
> >>
> >> At the moment I find the draft a bit confusing in one way. It's aimed at
> standards track, but it mainly doesn't read like a standard. There's a lot of
> discussion but not much specification. If I was a coder, I wouldn't really know
> where to start. For example, the end of the Introduction says:
> >>
> >> "This document discusses the applicability of IPv6 ND over wireless
> >> links, as compared with routing-based alternatives such as prefix-per
> >> node and multi-link subnets (MLSN), and with Wireless ND (WiND), that
> >> is similar to the Wi-Fi association and reduces the need for
> >> Network-Layer multicast."
> >>
> >> If it's a standard, IMHO it shouldn't do that. It should specify what WiND is,
> with normative references as needed. Section 5 is the important part. It's fine
> to have a descriptive section about why WiND is needed, but that is almost
> better as an appendix. The main text should be essentially the instructions for a
> kernel programmer.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>   Brian Carpenter
> >>
> >>> On 30-May-20 23:46, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> >>> Dear all
> >>>
> >>> Since there’s so much energy on the list these days, could we
> >>> consider the adoption of
> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-05
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>> I got only positive feedback, there’s no politics, there no label, it’s all about
> IPv6 models for wireless. This may appear useful in a world where the vast
> majority of devices are connected that way.
> >>>
> >>> Keep safe,
> >>>
> >>> Pascal
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> >>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>