Re: [v6ops] Agenda scheduling for IETF 79

[Joel Jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 10/1/10 11:35 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2010, at 9:19 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
>> Dear Fred Baker,
>> 
>> The sessions that you have requested have been scheduled. Below is
>> the scheduled session information followed by the information of
>> sessions that you have requested.
>> 
>> V6OPS Session 1 (2.5 hours) Wednesday, Morning Session I 0900-1130 
>> Room Name: Valley Ballroom B 
>> ---------------------------------------------- V6OPS Session 2 (2.5
>> hours) Friday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500 Room Name: Valley
>> Ballroom A ----------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:07 AM, IETF Agenda wrote:
>> The DRAFT agenda is ready for viewing.  Please note the cutoff date
>> for requests to reschedule Working Group and BOF meetings is
>> October 11, 2010 17:00 PT.  The final agenda will be published on
>> October 15, 2010.
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/79/agenda.html 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/79/agenda.txt
>> 
>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/79/index.html
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, Wanda
>> 
>> Only 36 days until the Beijing IETF! Online registration for the
>> IETF meeting is at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/79/
> 
> 
> Joel, Kurtis, and I are starting to assemble the IETF 79 Agenda. What
> I have at this instant is at
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/v6ops.html. I requested two
> morning (2.5 hours) slots; I got one morning slot and "Friday
> afternoon until we stop talking" - nominally two hours, but Wanda
> tells me she has noted that we will likely run over. It looks like we
> will have a pretty full agenda; between the -v4v6tran- and -v6ops-
> work, we have a total of 18 drafts.
> 
> Anything I have missed - drop us a note at
> [e-mail] if you would. The chairs have not yet
> discussed this in detail amongst ourselves yet, so I'm not sure which
> day will get which topic, and there are other reorganizations that
> could happen. If folks have strong opinions, that too would be
> interesting to know.
> 
> This assumes, btw, that the WGLCs that we have been running mean that
> we don't need to discuss those drafts. Besides the drafts on the
> agenda, our status is:
> 
> To complete WGLC before IETF 79 
> draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines    (waiting new draft) 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns (waiting document writeup)

		actually this one is waiting an updated draft to clear
		one issued noted in last call.

> draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn          (just completed WGLC) 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops             (in WGLC) 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks    (October 11-24) 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-48boundary       (Oct 24-Nov 7)
> 
> In IESG discussion: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-04 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-14 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-08 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-rogue-ra-01 (Needs an updated draft from Tim)
> 
> RFC Editor Queue draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-07 
> draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-00 
> draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-08
> 
> Dead? draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation-01
> 
> Recent RFCs:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5963.txt 5963 IPv6 Deployment in Internet
> Exchange Points (IXPs). R. Gagliano. August 2010. (Format: TXT=22786
> bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5991.txt 5991 Teredo Security Updates. D.
> Thaler, S. Krishnan, J. Hoagland. September 2010. (Format: TXT=20847
> bytes) (Updates RFC4380) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6018.txt 6018 IPv4 and IPv6 Greynets. F.
> Baker, W. Harrop, G. Armitage. September 2010. (Format: TXT=21541
> bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
> 
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list 
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>