[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Status check

FYI

I sent the following to the various authors of v6ops drafts on Friday. I have not heard from them yet. However, it represents my understanding of our status at this point, with the exception that over the weekend the network architecture protection draft finished last call and I am now expecting an updated draft from those authors as well.

I have not had any requests for time in the working group meeting, and will not allocate any unless someone tells me they want it.

Commentary solicited...

Fred

Begin forwarded message:

From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: July 1, 2005 12:34:24 PM PDT
To: <the various authors>
Cc: Lindqvist Erik Kurt <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>
Subject: Status check

I believe that this is the current document status. Am I correct? If so, a number of you have until 17 July to produce an update, and Tim has until 11 July on vlan-usage.

I am starting to put together an agenda for the coming meeting. Any of you that want agenda time should let me know now, please. AFAIK, the only documents that need discussion are the Secure Tunnels and the Enterprise Analysis draft, both of which are likely to go to Last Call after the the IETF meeting. After that, we will have no work on the table beyond pushing documents through the IESG process. If that status remains in the fall, I will request a one hour slot for a status update; if other new work is presented, we will take time to discuss it and decide whether it is appropriate to the working group. In any event, we will need to decide whether we need to keep the working group open (OK with me either way, and I can see good arguments either way).

Ralph Droms is considering requesting an hour for a BOF. I have included his proposed BOF Charter at the end of this note. If we plan to spend an hour on the two drafts and on WG process, that leaves an hour available out of the two hour slot I have requested. Hmmmmmm. Is there any problem with having that BOF simply be part of the v6ops meeting?

Status, per my notes:
draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-02.txt
State: I-D Exists
Expires: November 2005
draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-02.txt
State: Awaiting update to last call comments
Expires: November 2005
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt
State: Awaiting update to last call comments
Expires: December 2005
draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt
State: In WG Last Call
Expires: December 2005
draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-00.txt
State: Awaiting update to last call comments
Expires: Tuesday
draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-00.txt
State: Awaiting update to last call comments
Expires: November 2005
draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6security-02.txt
State: ID Exists, no work planned
Expires: August 2005
draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-03.txt
State: ID Exists, no work planned
Expires: July 2005
draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure-tunnels-03.txt
State: Awaiting -ietf- document for discussion
Expires: June 2005
draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage-03.txt
State: Awaiting update to last call comments (Tim/Pekka, 10 May)
Exires: already expired

        draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-11.txt
                State: RFC Editor's Queue
        draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-07.txt
                State: RFC Editor's Queue
        draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-05.txt
                State: RFC Editor's Queue


On Jul 1, 2005, at 6:05 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:

One of the suggestions that came out of the meetings between the project
team and Cisco this week was to schedule a BOF at IETF63 to discuss
renumbering. I've written a first draft of a request; let me know if
you think a BOF would be a good idea, and any feedback you have on the
request.

- Ralph

=====

		Discussion of IPv6 Network Renumbering
		--------------------------------------

Baker, et al., have written a description a process for IPv6 network
renumbering in "Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a
Flag Day" <draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-05.txt>.  Teams from
University of Southampton, the JOIN Project at University of Muenster,
Renater, PSNC and Loria-Inria have conducted a series of experiments
in network renumbering, based on the process described by Baker.
Results from the study include operational experience with the network
renumbering procedure, identification of the effects of network
renumbering on network management tools and other applications and
recommendations for updates to the network renumbering procedure, and
advice network administrators, application developers and others to
ameliorate the effects of network renumbering.

The purpose of this BOF is to disseminate results and conclusions from
these experiments, stimulate discussion of IPv6 network renumbering
and consider future work in this area.  The draft agenda for the BOF
is:

Introduction Ralph Droms ( 5 mins)

Prior art and tools, backbone renumbering JOIN/Univ. Muenster ( 5 mins)
and BGP issues, SOHO renumbering

Enterprise experiments and recommendations Univ. Southampton ( 5 mins)

Router renumbering protocol Renater ( 5 mins)

Impact of renumbering on management tools PSNC ( 5 mins)

Maintaining management plane during Loria-Inria ( 5 mins)
renumbering, monitoring renumbering

Conclusions Ralph Droms ( 5 mins)

Discussion (25 mins)