Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF 109

(for my part, I think v6ops WG already has the problem statement draft 
in the agenda; it was posted 
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/109/agenda/agenda-109-v6ops-04)

For more precision, the title in the agenda would add  '... - A Problem 
Statement'.

So I think it's fine there.

Alex

Le 08/11/2020 à 20:06, Gyan Mishra a écrit :
> 
> Fred & Ron
> 
> See thread below.  Should I put together a presentation for v6ops per 
> below to review the problem.
> 
> Gyan
> 
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 1:16 PM Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org 
> <mailto:otroan@employees.org>> wrote:
> 
>     I would expect the v6ops chairs would like a presentation, but let
>     me not presuppose how they want to run that session.
> 
>     Cheers
>     Ole
> 
>>     On 8 Nov 2020, at 19:00, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>
>>
>>     On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 12:58 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 12:35 PM <otroan@employees.org
>>         <mailto:otroan@employees.org>> wrote:
>>
>>             Hi Gyan,
>>
>>             > As we have had thus far and ongoing quite a bit of
>>             discussion on variable slaac can we add this to the
>>             agenda.  We can also expand the scope of discussion as to
>>             all use cases related to slaac longer prefix lengths and
>>             how it can be beneficial per the “Extending a /64” new
>>             thread.  I can start the discussion and we can take it
>>             from there.
>>
>>             The "Extending a /64" thread (which I in hindsight see is
>>             poorly named) is not about longer prefix lengths.
>>             It is about exploring solutions to the problem of
>>             extending a network assigned with a single /64 with
>>             multiple links.
>>
>>
>>             Gyan> Agreed but G-Extend the 64 bit boundary
>>
>>
>>
>>             <chair-hat>Bob and I had a discussion with the chairs of
>>             v6ops, where we agreed to have the "what is the
>>             operational problem" discussion over in v6ops.</chair-hat>.
>>
>>
>>             Gyan> Sounds good.  Will have the draft authors join in on
>>         the discussion.
>>
>>
>>         Should I put together a presentation for the discussion or
>>     will it be ad-hoc.
>>
>>
>>
>>             Best regards,
>>             Ole
>>
>>         -- 
>>
>>         <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>>         *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>>         /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>>
>>         /M 301 502-1347
>>         13101 Columbia Pike
>>         <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>         /Silver Spring, MD
>>         <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>
>>     <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>>     *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>>     /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
>>
>>     /M 301 502-1347
>>     13101 Columbia Pike
>>     <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>     /Silver Spring, MD
>>     <https://www.google.com/maps/search/13101+Columbia+Pike+Silver+Spring,+MD?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>
>>
> -- 
> 
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
> 
> *Gyan Mishra*
> 
> /Network Solutions A//rchitect /
> 
> /M 301 502-1347
> 13101 Columbia Pike
> /Silver Spring, MD
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 