[v6ops] Fwd: IETF 108 planning

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Passing along an exchange I had with Ron. TL;DR: we plan to have an “interim” session online sometime in July in lieu of a formal meeting managed as part of IETF 108. If we want to meet as part of IETF 108, I have until June 12 to request a slot, but as of now I don’t plan to do so.

Your opinions welcome.

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> Date: June 3, 2020 at 8:17:07 AM PDT
> To: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
> Subject: RE:  IETF 108 planning
> 
> 
> Fred,
>  
> I agree. V6OPS has done a very good job of shifting its work from in person meetings to the mailing list. So, we really don’t need to meet at IETF 108.
>  
> We are progressing the drafts that we have on our plate nicely and we don’t have any new drafts.
>  
>                                                         Ron
>  
>  
>  
> Juniper Business Use Only
> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:53 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Fwd: IETF 108 planning
>  
> FYI, per https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/important-dates/, 6/12 is the last day to request a working group meeting within the IETF 108 schedule. I am not currently planning to do that, as we have no new drafts to discuss. Folks have until 7/8 to file them, of course, but If they do they by definition have to be deferred to IETF 109 - I can't schedule a meeting to discuss them. At most, we can invite email discussion.
>  
> You saw this email two months ago, and the one response, from Brian Carpenter, who asked that the speakers file drafts.
>  
> When would be a good time for a phone call?
>  
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
>  
> From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
> Subject: IETF 108 planning
> Date: April 18, 2020 at 12:25:29 PM PDT
> To: IPv6 Operations <[e-mail]>
>  
> Ron and I are starting the planning for IETF 108. Alissa has told the working group chairs that there is a distinct chance that it will be entirely virtual. Whatever the rest of the IETF does, I expect there will be some of us that are not permitted to travel there - at least one speaker has told me that. And I’m scratching my head on the agenda.
>  
> Each meeting, I say about 30 days before the repository closes that “if someone has a draft they want to file, now would be the perfect time to do so.” Consider that said. We are in the process of working group last calls on five drafts, which I expect to result in updated drafts placed in Warren’s in-basket. Those are each named “draft-Ietf-v6ops-*” or “draft-Ietf-dhc-*”. 
>  
> My understanding is that, with one possible exception, the working group doesn’t find our other posted individual submissions (draft-name-v6ops-*) operationally interesting. So I’m looking for one, perhaps both, of two things: new drafts that the working group, when asked, says “this is important; we need to discuss this”, or statements by other than an author/editor that the individual submissions are operationally interesting. In each case, as always, I’m looking for supportive list discussion; that can include the authors/editors, of course, but most interesting are folks that have no vested interest saying “I would like to implement this in my network.”
>  
> So, I’m looking for drafts to discuss.
>  
> We also, for the past several years, been giving operators an opportunity to talk about IPv6 (and especially IPv6-only) deployment in their networks. If you look in the proceedings starting with about IETF 98, we have had one per meeting with the exception of IETF 107. What I am looking for there is
>  
>    - letting operators talk with each other
>    - is there work that we, the IETF, need to be doing and haven’t done?
>  
> Right now, I have three folks that have asked me for air time:
>  
>       Ben Kyemba, RENU (IPv6 deployment in RENU, NREN in Uganda)
>       Jen Linkova, Google, (the process of turning off IPv4)
>       Chifei Xie, China Telecom (Chinese IPv6 usage statistics, which differ from Google, Akamai, and APNIC numbers)
>  
> A topic I would like to see discussed (but I’m missing some important details) would be an IPv6-capable network security survey tool. One issue enterprises raise with IPv6 is that appliances and tools they use for IPv4 security are not available (or not well known) as applying the same tests to IPv6 and thereby testing a network’s IPv6 security In a comparable way. If someone has one they would recommend, especially if they have experience using it, I’d like to add a talk on that topic to the above four.
>  
> So, to put hands and feet on this, I’m thinking of scheduling a two hour virtual interim and asking those three or four speakers to participate in it. If we have new draft(s) with working group support, I’ll include those as well, of course, but that would be in a separate meeting.
>  
> So, I have a couple of questions, besides “please post drafts”.
>  
> 1) do you find the speakers listed above interesting?
> 2) would you rather meet f2f in Madrid during the scheduled IETF week?
>      “ “ “ meet virtually during the scheduled IETF week
>      “ “ “ would you rather have one or two virtual interims?
> 3) if you’re interested in a virtual interim, when would you like to do it? Fill in the doodle poll: https://doodle.com/poll/4fw2d6d56fyi2tw4