Re: [v6ops] IPv6 Operations - IETF 82 Agenda

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 27, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Fred,
> 
> I raised no objection to this policy:
> 
>> no email discussion, no f2f discussion
> 
> but I did not interpret it to mean that *introducing* new drafts
> in the f2f meeting was excluded. Note that I am not suggesting
> detailed presentations and I certainly don't intend this to
> be special pleading for my own drafts. They will sink or swim
> on their merits.

Every draft the working group has objected to was one introduced in the f2f discussion. Yes, I believe drafts will sink or swim on their merits, regardless of how they are introduced. What we discussed in Prague was that the f2f agenda should be something that has operational support on the list.

> Regards
>   Brian
> 
> On 2011-10-28 11:31, Fred Baker wrote:
>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 4:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>>> There are oustanding requests to introduce draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance
>>> and draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance. I fully agree with a policy
>>> of not devoting large amounts of time to drafts that haven't yet been
>>> discussed extensively on the list, but experience shows that people
>>> need a nudge to get interested in a new topic.
>> 
>> I have been nudging, and not gotten a response.
>> 
>> On draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance, I have seen comments from you and myself on draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance, and Tassos gave you a review. On draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance, the only comment I have seen is from you, and said "if there is interest, I'd like to discuss this".
>> 
>> I'll invite you to nudge for working group commentary, and even if folks say during the agenda bash that they want them added I'll add them. I have gotten a load from the working group on not being strict enough about inclusion, and am applying the rule we agreed on in Prague - no email discussion, no f2f discussion, unless there is something pretty clearly timely and relevant (such as WIDE's report on running an IPv6-only network).
>> 
>>> Regards
>>>  Brian
>>> 
>>> On 2011-10-27 21:48, Fred Baker wrote:
>>>> Our agenda as it stands today. Comments appreciated. Still looking for comments on several recent drafts, or reposting of older drafts people want to discuss.
>>>> 
>>>> IPv6 Operations - IETF 82
>>>> 
>>>> Wednesday
>>>> 
>>>> Agenda bashing
>>>> 
>>>> Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems
>>>> 24-Oct-11 , <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6nd-problems>
>>>> Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
>>>> 18-Oct-11 , <draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis>
>>>> Wireline Incremental IPv6
>>>> 9-Oct-11 , <draft-kuarsingh-wireline-incremental-ipv6>
>>>> Analysis and recommendation for the ULA usage
>>>> 21-Oct-11 , <draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis>
>>>> Thursday
>>>> 
>>>> Comcast IPv6 Trial/Deployment Experiences
>>>> 2-Oct-11 , <draft-jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences>
>>>> Experiences from an IPv6-Only Network in the WIDE Camp Autumn 2011
>>>> 23-Oct-11 , <draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience>
>>>> Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 Packets
>>>> 25-Jul-11 , <draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>>