Re: [v6ops] IETF Working Group Agenda Analysis

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

Let me ask a question. Each time we meet, about a month before the repository cut-off, I say "it's a month before the cut-off" - Speak!. I barely hear crickets. When I sent this (which I share with Ron every other week and we discuss), I got several replies.

Question for this list: is this a useful formulation of the datatracker data and call to working group action? Would you like to see it a few weeks before each meeting? It's what Ron and I use, in addition to the datatracker itself, in figuring out our agenda. When I comment on mailing list behavior, these are the links I'm following. As I did in this email, I can also list action items I'm expecting - such as "hint, you know who you are" - we had several people agree at IETF 105 to review drafts and comment to the list...

On Oct 14, 2019, at 3:04 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Apologies for the HTML Email. Some folks complain about them. This is a file I put together daily showing the status of v6ops documents.This document describes the drafts associated with this group. It describes their current state as seen by the RFC Editor, IESG/AD, and the working or research group. For working group drafts and individual submissions, it also indicates whether the draft has been updated since the previous IETF meeting. Drafts that are new or have been updated are "current"; other drafts are "old".
> 
> At IETF 105, Jen discussed draft-linkova-v6ops-nd-cache-init, and there was a lot of support for taking it as a working group draft. Bob Hinden, 6man chair, commented that he would prefer that v6ops discuss operational issues, but protocol issues be discussed in 6man. Hence, Ron and I are looking for a draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init that addresses the operational issues raised in this draft, and Bob and Ole are looking for the protocol issues in a 6man draft. Those balls are in Jen's court, but I suspect she would appreciate any help folks want to offer.
> 
> A point I'm thinking about for IETF 106 is that we don't see a lot of email support for the individual submissions below. If you are hoping for one of them to go somewhere, email to the list would be in order. We're also interested in new drafts on IPv6 networking. If you're seeking inspiration, there have been a couple of longish threads on nanog@ recently. As stated in our charter, we would hope they address operational issues that you see in your network(s), and propose solutions. Such drafts have to be posted before November 4, as that's the repository cut-off, and ideally long enough before that to allow for mailing list discussion.