[v6ops] Current state of v6ops drafts, updated
"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 06:44 UTC
Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A85411E82F6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtbu+ShHyMyO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732DE11E816F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4910; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1382510652; x=1383720252; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:reply-to:mime-version; bh=daQKLIrcTUFOj7dCtQWkXwvTsmRLSpRGahk/kykxShc=; b=KblF7Je9p4MzXySsJ3cE+WBBjziHa51+xNTUc2kU7JbGt1O8Nuxd6tme LhwdoZYpQCThsh/I7ol83CnJcvA07nz0GUDg1pdu04dDB9e0a8eJMOBv4 wmgAEL9jQg5s6zUs/iRcDX7FmaVGZeJ/dV6bYP0yA8j02v5HvTUujDGFq 8=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFABpvZ1KtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4VL5SgSIWdIImAQEEZQkLEAIBKiQyDhcCBA4FCAaHeA26UI8dMQeDH4EKA5AtgTCHW5BYgySCKg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,553,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="275489960"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2013 06:44:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9N6iA5I019806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:44:11 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.23]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 23 Oct 2013 01:44:10 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Current state of v6ops drafts, updated
Thread-Index: AQHOz7tGrq1y9sLiZkyqLxEuU22YOg==
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:44:09 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA74409@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <E658F0E7-3F06-409F-8692-4ADA274383D7@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E658F0E7-3F06-409F-8692-4ADA274383D7@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.212.192]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8810E651-34D8-4824-82EF-ACDB2F6F229B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [v6ops] Current state of v6ops drafts, updated
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "V6ops Chairs (v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org)" <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:44:17 -0000
I'm pulling an agenda together for IETF 88. My sources include the internet drafts directory and http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/, plus my mail store. I am interested in your viewpoints on this. The last paragraph of this note contains a question I'd appreciate answers to, private to v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org or to the list. One relevant point - Chris Palmer of Microsoft wants to talk about the evolution of the XBOX. When Dave Thaler asked me to speak about the evolution (devolution?) of Teredo, I put him on the agenda on the premise that this was an ongoing topic in the WG and of interest to the operators. In the case of the XBOX, that's not so obvious to me. So, please, if you're interested in such a talk, please advise, copying at least John, Chris, and myself if not the working group. Draft status: RFC Ed Queue: Oct 30 draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Nov 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation Mar 18 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat Sep 15 draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis Exiting WGLC; on its way to IESG: Oct 7 draft-ietf-v6ops-64share Oct 16 draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 Working Group Document updated since IETF: Aug 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-dc-ipv6 Aug 15 draft-ietf-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6 Sep 11 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile Oct 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience Oct 21 draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations Oct 21 draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security Individual Submission to v6ops posted/updated since IETF: Jul 30 draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency Oct 4 draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-end-to-end-rt-needed Oct 4 draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-packet-sequence-needed Oct 4 draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-pdm-recommended-usage Oct 11 draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip Oct 18 draft-ma-v6ops-router-test Oct 21 draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem Oct 21 draft-yang-v6ops-ipv6tran-select Oct 21 draft-sun-v6ops-openv6-address-pool-management Oct 21 draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis Oct 21 draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis Oct 21 draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem Oct 22 draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime My guess at an IETF 88 agenda given current data: Aug 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-dc-ipv6 (get discussion going) Aug 15 draft-ietf-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6 (get discussion going) Sep 11 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile (discussion of changes resulting from IETF LC) Oct 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience (do we have rough consensus?) Oct 21 draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations (get discussion going) Oct 21 draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security (get discussion going) X BOX evolution? Some subset of the individual submissions In 4.5 hours, we probably have time for discussion of 9-13 drafts - my preference being closer to 9 (30 minutes/draft) than 13 (20 minutes/draft). That suggests that we could, if we chose, have the X Box discussion, and/or have time for discussion of 2-7 of the individual submissions. There was some on-list discussion of draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency in August, and I think I caught a vote of confidence for draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem. I personally find draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime interesting architecturally. Wes George tells me that draft-yang-v6ops-ipv6tran-select has some interaction with DHC and Sunset4. I'm looking for him and the DHC chairs to tell me what to do with that - the draft may be appropriate for v6ops discussion, and may be better in one of those other working groups. Frankly, with the draft cutoff so close to the date I need to post an agenda, it is difficult for me to follow our usual practice of monitoring mailing list discussion to vet WG interest in drafts. Therefore, I'm going to pose this question directly. I presume that every author wants to discuss their draft; some have asked for time. Would folks please advise the chairs which among the individual submissions and the X Box discussion they think merit discussion in v6ops at IETF 88?
- [v6ops] Current state of v6ops drafts, updated Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] Current state of v6ops drafts, updated joel jaeggli