Conclusion of Adoption Call for <draft-templin-6man-omni-interface>

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 08 October 2020 00:55 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913183A0112 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:55:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.078
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xS9aLz8qvzgO for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x435.google.com (mail-wr1-x435.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::435]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 999A53A00E0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x435.google.com with SMTP id w5so4435561wrp.8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:55:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=PnqVRVe3joYtXx5fyOBBwesvGD/X2H+hZ+9uU+RJl5o=; b=RP8HpkecLpo20yHh1GdxgpMi8WTsqUlIviA6UmGh0OyHgL2SkkQxmC+xkp3x1IHCt4 tvN810YxDamrZVhaRB4c8u6J5w85xTF/CK02YTl01AW9qKAcRRF5WVqWdYet0Ff3uzM8 b0Q95MJWjuSRPMg5Hxwx7s+UFpJgPiXYuc/7DYAEXn1i7BzpULJfWuWq3SLVtezy78/r 90EACSADLWz9/BxuLl8WhYDdlez5qEWz2xSg0gdzaNy7NPsKbhMby10+zKV7/rNM7s0F Ql3bFJrmieeCDR7wcs8gnArHeTUkbiDQREIUvIMRzhZyhoXUtGHzeRebySTHC2E5nm54 RIQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=PnqVRVe3joYtXx5fyOBBwesvGD/X2H+hZ+9uU+RJl5o=; b=EKrlcpBc+Xk8+IreA4w7dU6lx9Mm4xPczlca7YwCdTDYCeS3wQ/I041cT6YMrY6rkw Mf754p1CGVUNmkcQXSbce7XnrEYj3nIxsadV4q63nKEhbm9aB4v9RtgAU+BzWENdmLLH 643dPcJlU8G/Lg+J0fwDrtsCtwW+GhuWbIvuOfOAt1hdmA0ADvrWgnLWYQ+ZqmZRbWel uXnJfWBxXy3DNvq7x515qBz7hLd0TMZLgH04wupulVDaSfgip4sMH3dy6NiNYaobuX7P JyhAjLg/XVyn3CrtaHm7+yM0FRIT/p/g4KI7fh3CQaCfwR7OhLLWsnkoXcjGna7qdqBg NHQQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530H4BeNAPgKtUWYVBpl9Mj5PY4yxE6+oedBtg+LPkfeuLcu8ZMx PKHDMKusVQzpfr5ThKbSZQUhZgQOI/8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyxQgZvNjWYyyJ0IQzeF43w8I1wRTE3Bgm0xPLE4GzHmxYE49EQLRgWnTNNpUqn0V4QO6WvxQ==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:a50e:: with SMTP id i14mr2888741wrb.121.1602118533573; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u15sm4948749wrm.77.2020.10.07.17.55.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Oct 2020 17:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <42FA51BA-E5A2-4CA0-A328-C5A3A82846C1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83A3DE28-3F4F-4ADA-A76E-4306478AB783"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.17\))
Subject: Conclusion of Adoption Call for <draft-templin-6man-omni-interface>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 17:55:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <0540F46E-2E31-4E85-BC48-05C351A86113@gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, =?utf-8?Q?Ole_Tr=C3=B8an?= <otroan@employees.org>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
References: <0540F46E-2E31-4E85-BC48-05C351A86113@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.17)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/s1S49EYPThX34Gowu4ExPgFb32k>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 00:55:49 -0000

This concludes the adoption call of <draft-templin-6man-omni-interface-27>.

There were four responses to the adoption call:

Tony Whyman <tony.whyman@mccallumwhyman.com>
"I am willing to join the design team."
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3O3KgczOZ-nRAHd3a0eWjdRbJ60

"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
"I would like to join the design team of the OMNI draft."
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/lcttbr96dVeaG1GTZuWQAhTci7Q/

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
"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" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
"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 <bob.hinden@gmail.com> 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
> 
>