Re: [v6ops] Fwd: IETF 108 planning

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Fred,

FWIW, I agree with your (and Ron's) assessment. Even more, if there's a 
need for a virtual meeting, I guess the option of interim meetings is 
always on the table?

(Actually, I'd say that I'm curious about the need to have a virtual 
IETF 108 -- spreading any virtual interim meetings over time and as 
needed would seem like a much better option to me).

Thanks,
Fernando




On 3/6/20 13:57, Fred Baker wrote:
> Passing along an exchange I had with Ron. TL;DR: we plan to have an 
> “interim” session online sometime in July in lieu of a formal meeting 
> managed as part of IETF 108. If we want to meet as part of IETF 108, I 
> have until June 12 to request a slot, but as of now I don’t plan to do so.
> 
> Your opinions welcome.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> *From:* Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
>> *Date:* June 3, 2020 at 8:17:07 AM PDT
>> *To:* Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* *RE:  IETF 108 planning*
>>
>> 
>>
>> Fred,
>>
>> I agree. V6OPS has done a very good job of shifting its work from in 
>> person meetings to the mailing list. So, we really don’t need to meet 
>> at IETF 108.
>>
>> We are progressing the drafts that we have on our plate nicely and we 
>> don’t have any new drafts.
>>
>>                                                         Ron
>>
>> Juniper Business Use Only
>>
>> *From:* Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 2, 2020 5:53 PM
>> *To:* Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc:* Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject:* Fwd: IETF 108 planning
>>
>> FYI, per https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/important-dates/, 
>> 6/12 is the last day to request a working group meeting within the 
>> IETF 108 schedule. I am not currently planning to do that, as we have 
>> no new drafts to discuss. Folks have until 7/8 to file them, of 
>> course, but If they do they by definition have to be deferred to IETF 
>> 109 - I can't schedule a meeting to discuss them. At most, we can 
>> invite email discussion.
>>
>> You saw this email two months ago, and the one response, from Brian 
>> Carpenter, who asked that the speakers file drafts.
>>
>> When would be a good time for a phone call?
>>
>>     Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>     *From: *Fred Baker <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>>     *Subject: IETF 108 planning*
>>
>>     *Date: *April 18, 2020 at 12:25:29 PM PDT
>>
>>     *To: *IPv6 Operations <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>>     Ron and I are starting the planning for IETF 108. Alissa has told
>>     the working group chairs that there is a distinct chance that it
>>     will be entirely virtual. Whatever the rest of the IETF does, I
>>     expect there will be some of us that are not permitted to travel
>>     there - at least one speaker has told me that. And I’m scratching
>>     my head on the agenda.
>>
>>     Each meeting, I say about 30 days before the repository closes
>>     that “if someone has a draft they want to file, now would be the
>>     perfect time to do so.” Consider that said. We are in the process
>>     of working group last calls on five drafts, which I expect to
>>     result in updated drafts placed in Warren’s in-basket. Those are
>>     each named “draft-Ietf-v6ops-*” or “draft-Ietf-dhc-*”.
>>
>>     My understanding is that, with one possible exception, the working
>>     group doesn’t find our other posted individual submissions
>>     (draft-name-v6ops-*) operationally interesting. So I’m looking for
>>     one, perhaps both, of two things: new drafts that the working
>>     group, when asked, says “this is important; we need to discuss
>>     this”, or statements by other than an author/editor that the
>>     individual submissions are operationally interesting. In each
>>     case, as always, I’m looking for supportive list discussion; that
>>     can include the authors/editors, of course, but most interesting
>>     are folks that have no vested interest saying “I would like to
>>     implement this in my network.”
>>
>>     So, I’m looking for drafts to discuss.
>>
>>     We also, for the past several years, been giving operators an
>>     opportunity to talk about IPv6 (and especially IPv6-only)
>>     deployment in their networks. If you look in the proceedings
>>     starting with about IETF 98, we have had one per meeting with the
>>     exception of IETF 107. What I am looking for there is
>>
>>        - letting operators talk with each other
>>
>>        - is there work that we, the IETF, need to be doing and haven’t
>>     done?
>>
>>     Right now, I have three folks that have asked me for air time:
>>
>>           Ben Kyemba, RENU (IPv6 deployment in RENU, NREN in Uganda)
>>
>>           Jen Linkova, Google, (the process of turning off IPv4)
>>
>>           Chifei Xie, China Telecom (Chinese IPv6 usage statistics,
>>     which differ from Google, Akamai, and APNIC numbers)
>>
>>     A topic I would like to see discussed (but I’m missing some
>>     important details) would be an IPv6-capable network security
>>     survey tool. One issue enterprises raise with IPv6 is that
>>     appliances and tools they use for IPv4 security are not available
>>     (or not well known) as applying the same tests to IPv6 and thereby
>>     testing a network’s IPv6 security In a comparable way. If someone
>>     has one they would recommend, especially if they have experience
>>     using it, I’d like to add a talk on that topic to the above four.
>>
>>     So, to put hands and feet on this, I’m thinking of scheduling a
>>     two hour virtual interim and asking those three or four speakers
>>     to participate in it. If we have new draft(s) with working group
>>     support, I’ll include those as well, of course, but that would be
>>     in a separate meeting.
>>
>>     So, I have a couple of questions, besides “please post drafts”.
>>
>>     1) do you find the speakers listed above interesting?
>>
>>     2) would you rather meet f2f in Madrid during the scheduled IETF week?
>>
>>          “ “ “ meet virtually during the scheduled IETF week
>>
>>          “ “ “ would you rather have one or two virtual interims?
>>
>>     3) if you’re interested in a virtual interim, when would you like
>>     to do it? Fill in the doodle poll:
>>     https://doodle.com/poll/4fw2d6d56fyi2tw4
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492