Re: [v6ops] Checking an outcome on the list

Response to your questions:

1/ I agreed this approach for the draft.

2/
 draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis should be adopted as WG draft.
 That helps the mobile operators to realize the problem they are facing and
together to find a way to fix it/workaround it.  We have been facing some
of the roaming issues mentioned in the draft.

Thanks,

...Ida

...Ida

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>