Re: [v6ops] New drafts

[[e-mail]]

> We have several new drafts that the chairs would like working group discussion on, if only to gauge interest. Jen sent a note regarding hers a moment ago. Jordi has, following feedback, divided 70844bis, and we are looking for commentary on each.
> 
> 	2017-06-14	draft-linkova-v6ops-conditional-ras
> 	2017-06-12	draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition
> 	2017-06-11	draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis2
> 	2017-06-11	draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis4-hncp
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis
>  "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", Jordi Palet,
>  2017-06-12
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-transition
>  "Transition Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", Jordi Palet,
>  2017-06-12
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis2
>  "Minimum Requirements for IPv6-only Customer Edge Routers", Jordi Palet,
>  2017-06-11
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis4-hncp
>  "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers with HNCP", Jordi Palet,
>  2017-06-11

I would prefer to see two IPv6 CE documents.
One updated 7084 with HNCP requirements and the transition mechanisms taken out.
One only for the transition mechanisms. Although that might have some overlap with draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe

The first is closest to Jordi's rfc7084-bis4-hncp (although there are not HNCP requirements there yet).
The second rfc7084-bis-transition. Although I have issues with the approach of recommending all options and not making a choice. When the IETF leaves it to the market to decide, because it cannot reach consensus, then we should consider that, given this is the closest thing we have to a "recommendations to the market" style document.

I also have issues with the author of these documents replacing the original author set with himself in the documents.

Cheers,
Ole