IETF Logo Mail Archive

[v6ops] Checking an outcome on the list

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 07 November 2013 22:57 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 33BEE11E815B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:57:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.124
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, 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 vdR6Vt9HAZjf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:57:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A978611E8140 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 14:57:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2013; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383865020; x=1385074620; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=JWVbtwuSfP8ZbVM/ecpGirvX/rXzRtaPjZpLspXln3o=; b=hOG22wnBciial0bDgC8hoGfHBDmiBEuAshmbja+DJwQOtXiFFHwBlM9C vweTATmefBYLIXU/+AltycB5xK4+g8a1jzrU7kbGeRxAaeubuBVyTJ/vo wwaIMLR9vNqeFLN1/yGzepVDNL2KcY+9MoJKSn0Nw506kdQP4lNIABOxS k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 195
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag4FAGEZfFKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABagweBC78OgScWdIIsZQkLEgGBABQTBA4FDodzvTSPWYMngRADkC6BMIYukgqDJoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,654,1378857600"; d="asc'?scan'208"; a="282186227"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Nov 2013 22:56:59 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA7Mux2I009766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 7 Nov 2013 22:56:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.122]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 7 Nov 2013 16:56:59 -0600
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Checking an outcome on the list
Thread-Index: AQHO3Aype5QzVdxtfEaHGp2VxesyKQ==
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:56:58 +0000
Message-ID: <0D5C911E-5EB3-4F1F-82B1-B2F486AE3E46@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.21.116.80]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ED0FB9DD-2ACF-4A6B-B641-A13BE7EAAFDE"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [v6ops] Checking an outcome on the list
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:57:15 -0000

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

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 v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org, that works too.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email