[v6ops] Working Group Administrivia

["Fred Baker (fred)" <[e-mail]>]

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 (<[e-mail]).

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-recommendations/

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 [e-mail] indicating that the old draft name were replaced by the new draft name, so that the revision history is tracked appropriately.

Opinions?