[v6ops] Status of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 07 March 2011 21:40 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D6FE6F5.2040200@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:41:41 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B9EE35CF-4140-44C5-BB96-09C54B7390AD@cisco.com>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456B774BC0EED@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <4D6EA100.1060809@gmail.com> <47C53154-8EEF-47AB-9A7C-8E5BB76B9899@cisco.com> <4D6FE6F5.2040200@gmail.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: [v6ops] Status of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework
Precedence: list

The chairs and Ron Bonica had a brief discussion about 

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework
  "Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios", Brian Carpenter, Sheng
  Jiang, Victor Kuarsingh, 1-Feb-11

In short, the working group agreed to take the draft on as a working group document and had a last call, and I sent it to Ron. However, the other documents that it suggests were discussed at IETF-79 and panned, and have not been updated. On that basis, Ron questions the utility of publishing the framework. 

What we agreed is that the Framework ID will be treated as a short term agreement within the WG, binding for the period of time that the WG is producing transition documents. If the WG sees a subsequent transition document that does not abide by the guideline, if will fix the subsequent document before sending it on. When the last transition document has been published, we will let the Framework ID expire.

Because the Framework ID is a short term agreement within the WG, it doesn't require IETF consensus. It requires WG consensus only (which it already has). Furthermore, the document might not be very interesting to anyone outside of the WG.

                                                    Ron

[v6ops] Status of draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-frame… Fred Baker