Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 18, 2010, at 3:49 AM, Tina TSOU wrote:

> Yes, v6ops WG is one of the most important WGs in IPv6 area. It is also very busy; usually have 2 sessions of 2 hours for each meeting.
> 
> As replied in previous emails, V6OPS is the beginning, which sends the requirements to 6MAN/BEHAVE/SOFTWIRE. V6Ops focus on issues of deploying IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks, with more advanced stages of deployment and transition a lower priority.

Donning my crown as Chair IPv6 Operations, and explicitly copying my co-chair and AD...

<crown>
That's actually incorrect; v6ops is about the operation of IPv6 networks. Most IPv6 networks are right now dealing with exactly the issues of deployment in existing IPv4 networks, and so yes operational deployment procedures and clarification of issues is squarely within v6ops' charter. If the reason you wanted to have this as a separate meeting was because you thought you couldn't wedge it into v6ops, you also didn't ask...

If there is a need for a new technology, yes, v6ops sends the work, in the form of requirements, to an appropriate working group. If the question is how to operationally use existing technologies, the discussion will generally stay in v6ops. I have not yet seen the proposed problem statement or other drafts, but from the discussion I would expect this to stay in v6ops.

Personally, I don't see a need for this to be a separate BOF. I'll support the activity wherever it occurs, but if the issue is that the operators would like to have a meeting separate from ongoing v6ops work to discuss the specific issues of deployment and transition, I am capable of and willing to ask for a third slot in Beijing specifically for the purpose. I would need some extra documentation; per the session request tool, "Additional slot may be available after agenda scheduling has closed and with the approval of an Area Director", which means that I need a convincing agenda to show Ron for this to happen. Even with that, in the past IETF there were a lot of working groups that didn't get *second* slots due to schedule density. But yes, it can happen, and I'm willing to make it happen or fit this discussion into the slots v6ops gets if we can't get a third slot.

I'm also willing to take the meeting on September 22nd as a webex-supported interim meeting (as opposed to Telepresence - too many locations) interim meeting of v6ops and let you run it. Due to the rules regarding interim meetings, I have some scurrying to do in the next couple of days - I need to post an announcement 30 days in advance. Doing so makes a very clear IETF footing for the meeting, however.

Up to you. http://www.ietf.org/iesg/bof-procedures.html, and the drop-dead date for a BOF request is 2010-09-13.

Oh, btw - status of documents in v6ops at this instant:

Open, not expected to continue:
	draft-azinger-cidrv6-00.txt (probably a replacement draft)
	draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation-01.txt
	draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops-02.txt

Open:	draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66-00.txt
	draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-03.txt
	draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps-03.txt
	draft-jiang-v6ops-nc-protection-01.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks-01.txt

New:	draft-vandevelde-v6ops-pref-ps-00.txt

WGLC within August-October:
	draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-04.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-02.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn-01.txt
	draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-05.txt (WG awaiting update)

IESG Evaluation:
	draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-07.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-06.txt (IESG awaiting update)
	draft-ietf-v6ops-rogue-ra-01.txt (IESG awaiting update)
	draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-12.txt
	draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-03.txt

RFC Editor Queue:
	draft-krishnan-v6ops-teredo-update-10.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp-09.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-00.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-07.txt 
		(http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue2.html#draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router)
	draft-baker-v6ops-greynet-05.txt

The point to take away from this is that while v6ops has had a lot (~24) documents in process over the past few months, many of them are in fact moving on. As of Beijing, I expect to have six or seven (6-7) documents on the table, which is generally what we discuss in a single 2 or 2.5 hour slot. I have already requested two slots, one for 2 hours and one for 2.5.

You may wonder why I spread WGLCs out over time. Basically, it's workload management. I find it easier to get assorted folks to look at documents if I ask them to do so within a finite amount of time (two weeks) one document at a time.

</crown>