Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 19:21 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 CC61C120964 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:21:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J0Kh_ykluxsq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9C94120963 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.32] (201-26-46-36.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.26.46.36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8D1E869AF; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:21:52 +0100 (CET)
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>, IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <895EAAE8-E24D-429C-8C1D-552B3331BE11@gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <cbe445e8-e1e6-650b-9e39-f3776b52e4a4@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:21:41 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <895EAAE8-E24D-429C-8C1D-552B3331BE11@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/mWD_7-IlKCwd9Vt8C_GydrMRD08>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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 2019 19:21:58 -0000
Fred, On 5/11/19 15:47, Fred Baker wrote: > With the closing of the Internet Draft repository at 23:59 UTC > yesterday, the draft status in v6ops looks like the attached. I > shared this in July, and some folks found it useful, so I'm sharing > it again for IETF 106. What would be the next step for v6ops to be polled for adoption of: * draft-gont-v6ops-slaac-renum * draft-gont-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum ? While there are certainly details to be worked out, based on the recent discussion (and earlier discussion this year), as a co-author I believe both docs are in shape for v6ops to decide whether the group wants to work on this or not. Thoughts? Thanks! Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning Fernando Gont
- Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning Owen DeLong
- Re: [v6ops] V6ops status as of this morning Fernando Frediani