[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed 6to4 work
- To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
- Subject: Re: Proposed 6to4 work
- From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 08:30:36 +0200
- Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:33:29 -0700
- Envelope-to: v6ops-data@psg.com
- Organization: IBM
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