Re: Proposed 6to4 work

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> At 05:35 AM 10/10/02, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >I'd like to propose that v6ops takes on the following items:
> >
> >Support for Multicast over 6to4 Networks (6TO4-MULTICAST)
> >  draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-multicast-01.txt
> >  (to be renamed draft-thaler-ngtrans-6to4-multicast-01.txt)
> >
> >Security Considerations for 6to4
> >  draft-savola-ngtrans-6to4-security-01.txt
> 
> Thanks for the submission.
> 
> Dave and Pekka, do you think that these works are ready for consideration
> as v6ops work items?

Regardless of the strict answer to your question, the topics (multicast
and spoofing risks) both need solutions - so sooner or later, we need
to adopt drafts on these topics.

> 
> >Any future updates to RFC 3056 and RFC 3068.
> 
> Our charter asserts that we would be responsible for any updates
> to these RFCs, but I don't know of any specific updates that have
> been proposed.  Did I miss something?

I waiting to see whether we need to add a default MRU to RFC 3056,
following the recent inconclusive discussions. That's the only
thing I know of right now.

   Brian

> 
> For the moment, let's talk about the two documents you listed above.
> As those of you who were at the Sunnyvale meeting may recall, we need
> to take several steps to accept a document into v6ops.
> 
> For a document to become a WG work item, it must:
>          - Fit within the WG charter (in the opinion of the chairs)
> 
> Itojun and I will confer off-line and give an answer on this ASAP.  But,
> in this particular case, let's start the next steps in parallel.
> 
>          - Have significant support from the working group, including:
>                  - People with expertise in all applicable areas who are
> willing
>                    to invest time to review the document, provide feedback,
> etc.
> 
> Who has read either of these documents and would like to invest time in
> either of them as a v6ops work item?  Obviously Brian.  Are there others?
> Please be specific about which document(s) you are willing to work on.
> Also, are there folks with multicast and/or security backgrounds who
> are willing to review these documents?
> 
>                  - Probable (or current) implementors, if applicable
> 
> Has anyone implemented either of these I-Ds?  Does anyone plan to
> implement them when they are more stable/complete?
> 
>          - Be accepted as a work item by a rough consensus of the WG
>                  - Should reflect WG belief that the document is taking the
>                    correct approach and would be a good starting place for
>                    a WG product
> 
> Who has an opinion on whether we should/shouldn't accept these
> documents as work items?  Please only reply to this if you have _read_
> the document(s).  This is not a general question like "should we work
> on multicast extensions to 6to4?" or "Is security important?", it is a
> specific question about whether or not to accept these documents as
> the basis for our work.  Again, please be specific about which document
> you are discussing.
> 
> Comments on the general approach taken in the documents?  Are they
> correct and complete enough that we are ready to move editorial control
> of them to the WG?  Authors, what are your opinions?
> 
> Also, are the authors willing to serve as document editors if these
> documents are accepted?
> 
>          - Have corresponding goals/milestones in the charter
>                  - Approved by the Area Directors
> 
> Itojun and I will work on this if/when the other pieces appear to be
> falling into line.
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 
On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland