[v6ops] Would like guidance on the IETF-87 agenda
"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Tue, 16 July 2013 04:41 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 96AC521E81A8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.267, 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 79cYuY4G8yZC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D483C21E819F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4801; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373949678; x=1375159278; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+hR8tJFX4TvgSdHzBYx+p/2gvQu0X/463DY7i/WrYU4=; b=aCTlnl0yOuOQSUl+zGUE7b0VlAyxci5vJdCvdXbdEr8iYlQEGjWgT7js YnQA9w8ZEfxLdM1CUCJ2PcA+WoyWjgWqc4IlIfBrvjJ6sPXsoqd3eXNGo frdg1Qor0nXj8qkhZpzw+ZFBzTUvK7qn+ErkPpQ0zemtIXtAUkvtK524Z k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhkFALnN5FGtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagwaBA8FdgQ8WdIIlAQQ6KxQSASoUQg4ZBA4NDId8nQmZVI8zMYMSbQOpKYMSgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,674,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="235060804"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2013 04:41:18 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com [173.37.183.85]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6G4fILe019032 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:41:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-rcd-x11.cisco.com ([173.37.183.85]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:41:17 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Would like guidance on the IETF-87 agenda
Thread-Index: AQHOgd614flrXLIFXEyWtdRn/AzCoQ==
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:41:16 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B93DC38@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.194.208]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3E25DD5F8CF46F429A5ABF110B15ED26@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [v6ops] Would like guidance on the IETF-87 agenda
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "<v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>" <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
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: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:41:24 -0000
Asking the working group for its input. The Internet Draft cut-off for new -00 drafts was extended through yesterday, concomitant with the final cut-off. We got a few more drafts, including both updated drafts and new -00. My general rule is to look for list activity on a draft, but now find myself in a crunch because I need to finalize an agenda and frankly you haven't had much time to look through things. So I need your guidance. Here is the draft set for IETF-87 RFC Ed Queue: Mar 18 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat Oct 30 draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Nov 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation Exiting WGLC; on its way to IESG: May 27 draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis Jun 11 draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile Jul 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-64share Working Group Document updated since IETF: May 17 draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations Jul 9 draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience Jul 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 Individual Submission to v6ops updated since IETF: Apr 14 draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-ipid-needed May 31 draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-end-to-end-rt-needed May 31 draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-packet-sequence-needed May 31 draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-pdm-recommended-usage Jun 4 draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop Jul 12 draft-grundemann-hipnet Jul 14 draft-lopez-v6ops-dc-ipv6 Jul 15 draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix Jul 15 draft-v6ops-vyncke-balanced-ipv6-security Jul 15 draft-servin-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6 ??? Jul 8 draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-00.txt Jul 10 draft-osamu-v6ops-ipv4-literal-in-url-00.txt Jul 15 draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes-00.txt Jul 14 draft-bajpai-happy No obvious v6ops interest: Mar 28 draft-generic-v6ops-tunmtu Apr 1 draft-yang-v6ops-fast6 Jul 12 draft-yang-v6ops-ipv6tran-select Apr 24 draft-gundavelli-v6ops-community-wifi-svcs Working Group Document NOT updated since IETF: Feb 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices Individual Submission to v6ops NOT updated since IETF: Jan 25 draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn Feb 18 draft-ma-v6ops-ipv6-address-assignment Feb 20 draft-smith-v6ops-larger-ipv6-loopback-prefix Feb 25 draft-sun-v6ops-semantic-usecase Feb 25 draft-shishio-v6ops-dpvt Liu Bing tells me that he is not ready to discuss draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations this time, which is fine. However, George Michaelson has put together some data on the announcement of ULAs in routing, which I think bears looking at given that we are thinking about it. Philip Matthews tells me that he is considering abandoning draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices unless someone would like to co-author. I haven't seen a response to that. My inclination for an agenda is then to include George's talk plus Jul 9 draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience Jul 14 draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6 Nalini Elkins' drafts as one discussion Jun 4 draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop Jul 12 draft-grundemann-hipnet Jul 14 draft-lopez-v6ops-dc-ipv6 Jul 15 draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix Jul 15 draft-v6ops-vyncke-balanced-ipv6-security Jul 15 draft-servin-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6 10 discussions in 240 minutes leaves 24 minutes per discussion. That's a good amount of time. Where I have questions relate to the four very new drafts. draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis looks at issues raised with IPv6 operation in inter-provider environments. We have a number of such, and it seems useful to discuss. draft-osamu-v6ops-ipv4-literal-in-url reports on some research done in the WIDE project, regarding the use of IPv4 literals in an IPv6-only network using NAT64 translation for access to the IPv4 Internet. draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes, which contains no abstract, appears to be looking at the cases in which we deploy networks with multiple prefixes on each LAN or on a set of LANs. draft-bajpai-happy looks at Happy Eyeballs implementations, with a view to understanding its behavior in deployment. I am inclined to let draft-liu-v6ops-running-multiple-prefixes simmer; I think it will benefit from list discussion, and as I understand him Liu Bing will not be at this meeting. I'm inclined to include the other three drafts, however, as they are relevant to matters the working group has recently worked on, even though I have not seen appreciable list discussion on them yet. That gives us 18 minutes per discussion, which is tighter than I would like, but survivable. Opinions? Private to the chairs if you prefer.
- [v6ops] Would like guidance on the IETF-87 agenda Fred Baker (fred)