Re: [v6ops] Checking an outcome on the list

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

________________________________________
From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] on behalf of Fred Baker (fred) [[e-mail]]
Sent: 08 November 2013 6:56
To: [e-mail] WG
Subject: [v6ops] Checking an outcome on the list

We say we check f2f decisions on the mailing list to ensure that everyone had a chance to speak. Let's do that.

In IETF 88, we discussed a number of drafts. Of these:
  - draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security will start a two week WGLC on Monday morning New Zealand time.

<Sheng> Support for advancing.

  - draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience appears to have reached closure. We have one additional revision coming, and then will do a 1 week last call, probably early December.

<Sheng> Support for advancing. I was one of volunteer reviewer from last meeting. The current version has addressed my comments. In general, I think the document is mature for next stage.

  - draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem documents what seems to be a real problem.
      1) In your opinion, should draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem be adopted as WG draft draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem and matured into a problem statement to present to 6man?

<Sheng> Yes. The stand-alone problem document is also worth of publishing as a RFC. Then the guidance document below can refer to it without having to rediscribe the issues again.

      2) In your opinion, should v6ops invite a draft (which we might adopt as a working group draft) that gives current guidance to operators regarding the use of DHCP and SLAAC in their networks?

<Sheng> Yes.

  - Should draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis be adopted as WG draft draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis?

<Sheng> Yes. This document is quite helpful.

Regards,

Sheng

I'll collect up the responses in a week and make a determination based on that. I'm interested in your viewpoint, whether positive or negative. If you would prefer to send it privately to [e-mail], that works too.