Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:17 AM Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I’m not ignoring it Behcet. In fact I made that change for the acronyms.
>
>
Wait a minute, it is not only that.
I also asked more IoT content.
I think it would help to cover each major IoT technology as, for example,
we did in our T2TRG draft separately and clearly.

Behcet

>
> Regards,
>
> Pascal
>
> Le 26 mai 2023 à 17:09, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> a écrit :
>
> 
> Hi Bob,
>
> I made a review already, Pascal wants to ignore it, it is fine with me.
>
> Behcet
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:36 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Behcet,
>>
>> On May 25, 2023, at 7:58 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 4:48 PM Michael McBride <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks good Pascal. Agree its ready to progress.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [MCAST PROBLEMS] can be now be replaced with RFC 9119.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And you may want to consider moving the acronyms up from page 13 to page
>>> 3.
>>>
>>
>> I had already suggested this long time back.
>>
>> Having said that I am surprised Pascal all of a sudden is asking WGLC.
>>
>>
>> I read what he wrote as asking for reviews now in order to get to a w.g.
>> last call later.
>>
>> Reviews would be good.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> I said give me a break to myself 😀.
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Question on your Bonjour reference. Bonjour uses mDNS. Is that what you
>>> are referring to with “Excessive use of broadcast by protocols such as
>>> ND-Classic and Bonjour led network administrators to install multicast rate
>>> limiting to protect the network.”? We didn’t get into Bonjour in 9119 but
>>> we did get into mDNS a bit, ie, when many devices are using it. Just want
>>> to make sure we are saying that same thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* ipv6 <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Pascal Thubert
>>> (pthubert)
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:52 PM
>>> *To:* IPv6 WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
>>> *Subject:* [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear WG:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We adopted that draft to publish it as informational; it is at the same
>>> time a state of the art, a problem statement, and an applicability
>>> statement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issues are clear and present, see also
>>> draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations. We face customer situations where
>>> clients are not properly served because ND snooping fails to locate them
>>> all with a painful regularity. This impacts all sorts of situations, from
>>> wireless to fabrics / EVPN.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that This is indeed very related to the SLAAC operation and IPv4 is
>>> mostly immune. Meaning that the IPv6 experience is of more broadcasts and
>>> less reliability.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In order to progress in solving the issues raised, it makes sense to
>>> publish soon and move on. The draft has been progressing as an individual
>>> submission for a long time and it is mostly complete, IMHO. So my intent is
>>> to ask for WGLC sooner than later. To get there, reviews would be highly
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many thanks in advance : )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pascal
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>