Re: [v6ops] Current state of v6ops drafts, updated

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Wed, 23 October 2013 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.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 CFBC211E82FD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, 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 yH+17o9gUrIw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C155311E82FF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:55:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (c-50-174-18-221.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [50.174.18.221]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9N6tOtp006104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:55:25 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7247A0D3-4357-4099-B833-2AD5A84C7554"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA74409@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:55:19 -0700
Message-Id: <3158034D-1264-44DF-B9CA-9384E3577FE7@bogus.com>
References: <E658F0E7-3F06-409F-8692-4ADA274383D7@cisco.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA74409@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
To: "V6ops Chairs (v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org)" <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:55:26 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Current state of v6ops drafts, updated
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: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:55:35 -0000

On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:44 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> wrote:

> I'm pulling an agenda together for IETF 88. My sources include the internet drafts directory and http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/, plus my mail store. I am interested in your viewpoints on this. The last paragraph of this note contains a question I'd appreciate answers to, private to v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org or to the list.
> 
> One relevant point - Chris Palmer of Microsoft wants to talk about the evolution of the XBOX. When Dave Thaler asked me to speak about the evolution (devolution?) of Teredo, I put him on the agenda on the premise that this was an ongoing topic in the WG and of interest to the operators. In the case of the XBOX, that's not so obvious to me. So, please, if you're interested in such a talk, please advise, copying at least John, Chris, and myself if not the working group.

If it's a talk about a large scale deployment of ipv6 hosts IEPG (sunday) might be interested. my first reaction is what's the punchline for v6ops?


> 
> Draft status:
> 
> RFC Ed Queue:
>  Oct 30  draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
>  Nov 14  draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-implementation
>  Mar 18  draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
>  Sep 15  draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis
> 
> Exiting WGLC; on its way to IESG:
>   Oct  7  draft-ietf-v6ops-64share
>   Oct 16  draft-ietf-v6ops-enterprise-incremental-ipv6
> 
> Working Group Document updated since IETF:
>   Aug 14  draft-ietf-v6ops-dc-ipv6
>   Aug 15  draft-ietf-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6
>   Sep 11  draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
>   Oct 14  draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience
>   Oct 21  draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
>   Oct 21  draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security
> 
> Individual Submission to v6ops posted/updated since IETF:
>   Jul 30  draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency
>   Oct  4  draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-end-to-end-rt-needed
>   Oct  4  draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-packet-sequence-needed
>   Oct  4  draft-elkins-v6ops-ipv6-pdm-recommended-usage
>   Oct 11  draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip
>   Oct 18  draft-ma-v6ops-router-test
>   Oct 21  draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
>   Oct 21  draft-yang-v6ops-ipv6tran-select
>   Oct 21  draft-sun-v6ops-openv6-address-pool-management
>   Oct 21  draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
>   Oct 21  draft-moreiras-v6ops-rfc3849bis
>   Oct 21  draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem
>   Oct 22  draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime
> 
> My guess at an IETF 88 agenda given current data:
>   Aug 14  draft-ietf-v6ops-dc-ipv6			(get discussion going)
>   Aug 15  draft-ietf-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6		(get discussion going)
>   Sep 11  draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile	(discussion of changes resulting from IETF LC)
>   Oct 14  draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience		(do we have rough consensus?)
>   Oct 21  draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations	(get discussion going)
>   Oct 21  draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security	(get discussion going)
>           X BOX evolution?
>           Some subset of the individual submissions
> 
> In 4.5 hours, we probably have time for discussion of 9-13 drafts - my preference being closer to 9 (30 minutes/draft) than 13 (20 minutes/draft). That suggests that we could, if we chose, have the X Box discussion, and/or have time for discussion of 2-7 of the individual submissions.
> 
> There was some on-list discussion of draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency in August, and I think I caught a vote of confidence for draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem. I personally find draft-rafiee-v6ops-iid-lifetime interesting architecturally.
> 
> Wes George tells me that draft-yang-v6ops-ipv6tran-select has some interaction with DHC and Sunset4. I'm looking for him and the DHC chairs to tell me what to do with that - the draft may be appropriate for v6ops discussion, and may be better in one of those other working groups.
> 
> Frankly, with the draft cutoff so close to the date I need to post an agenda, it is difficult for me to follow our usual practice of monitoring mailing list discussion to vet WG interest in drafts. Therefore, I'm going to pose this question directly. I presume that every author wants to discuss their draft; some have asked for time. Would folks please advise the chairs which among the individual submissions and the X Box discussion they think merit discussion in v6ops at IETF 88?