[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?