IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Working Group Administrivia

t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Sun, 07 December 2014 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32BC01A8737 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 02:14:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 nZx0TcgLt4W3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 02:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0713.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::713]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CF7E1A8736 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 02:14:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pc6 (86.184.62.161) by DB3PR07MB058.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.26.15; Sun, 7 Dec 2014 10:01:08 +0000
Message-ID: <010701d01204$b8e18160$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <08DA982D-6605-434B-B815-C69B8A97FA4C@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:01:02 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Originating-IP: [86.184.62.161]
X-ClientProxiedBy: AM3PR01CA033.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.141.191.23) To DB3PR07MB058.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.137.148)
X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR07MB058;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR07MB058;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 04180B6720
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(199003)(189002)(13464003)(377424004)(377454003)(40100003)(99396003)(120916001)(61296003)(50466002)(81816999)(46102003)(1556002)(89996001)(97736003)(19580405001)(31966008)(19580395003)(122386002)(107886001)(1720100001)(15975445007)(107046002)(33646002)(50986999)(77156002)(68736005)(76176999)(77096005)(81686999)(42186005)(62966003)(21056001)(14496001)(116806002)(44736004)(101416001)(86362001)(23746002)(20776003)(105586002)(66066001)(87976001)(47776003)(84392001)(62236002)(64706001)(92566001)(106356001)(4396001)(50226001)(44716002)(1456002)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DB3PR07MB058; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:nov; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:0; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DB3PR07MB058;
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ni7VDqRzLYFNxXIrSgiBn4CLG_8
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Working Group Administrivia
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sun, 07 Dec 2014 10:14:07 -0000

Fred

As Brian says in his note,

2014-10-27           draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem/

addresses a known problem and I think it would be remiss of the IETF not
to have this documented

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: <v6ops@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 6:17 PM
Subject: [v6ops] Working Group Administrivia


Joel, Lee, and I spoke this morning about the status of the working
group and various drafts in it. I’d like to gauge working group
consensus on the status of a number of working group drafts that have
either expired or otherwise should no longer be considered working group
drafts. Your opinions, pro or con (such as “I’m fine with all that but
think we should still be considering draft-whatever”), please:

We think that the following can be safely set aside, by having the
secretariat record (and show in the data tracker) that they are no
longer working group drafts. They have expired, and are not currently
being pursued:

2003-01-13                     draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey/
2003-02-14                 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-gen
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-gen/
2004-07-20                  draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault/
2007-02-27             draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-routing-guidelines/
2007-03-28              draft-ietf-v6ops-campus-transition
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-campus-transition/
2008-05-13         draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req/
2011-07-26             draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework/
2013-08-14                draft-ietf-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-monitor-ds-ipv6/

We think that draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security, in its current
state, is a deployment report, primarily from Swisscom. While the
working group expressed interest in guidance on firewall configuration,
this isn’t it. We think it should no longer be a working group draft,
and invite the authors to submit it to the independent stream as a
deployment report (<rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org).

2013-12-06         draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security/

Although the working group expressed interest in the following and the
authors have been working hard on them, we think the working group is no
longer interested in these, and so they should be returned to the
authors and not recorded or treated as working group drafts.

2014-09-18                 draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices/
2014-10-27           draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem/
2014-10-27      draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendatio
ns/

Speaking for myself, if I have any question of the above, it is on only
one of these.

If any draft has its "WG Draft" status revoked, it will still be
available from the IETF website as far as I know, but subsequent
revisions should be named as individual submissions to a working group,
draft-<author>-<wg>-<subject> or individual submissions to the IETF,
draft-<author>-<subject>. It would be good if the authors would send a
note to internet-drafts@ietf.org indicating that the old draft name were
replaced by the new draft name, so that the revision history is tracked
appropriately.

Opinions?




------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email