Subject: draft agenda for v6ops at IETF60

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:23:23 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

See below the current draft agenda for v6ops sessions at IETF60.

The sessions are currently scheduled for Monday night and Friday
morning.  Let's hope that the latter one, at least, changes.

Updates or changes are very likely still.

Please send in your thoughts, further agenda requests, comments, etc.

=========

First session
=============
(Tentatively scheduled for Monday night)

Introduction and agenda bashing - 5 mins, Chairs/Savola
  - Scribes! (Jabber also?)

Document status - 15 mins, Chairs/Savola
 - What has happened with WG documents lately
 - GOAL: show the status of WG documents

Moving forward with Mechanisms - 45 mins, Chairs/ADs
 - [placeholder as of yet, plans still forming]
 - GOAL: discuss the procedure of how to move forward

VLAN Usage for IPv6 transition - 5 mins, Chown?
 - draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage-01.txt [expired, to be revised]
 - GOAL: describe the procedure, discuss whether to go for Informational RFC

Enterprise solution case study: Campus Transition - 20 mins, Chown
 - draft-chown-v6ops-campus-transition-00.txt
 - examine a case study of applying the enterprise scenarios document,
   discuss the issues.
 - GOAL: give input to the Enterprise solutions work and the necessity
   of transition tools.

IPv6 Security Overview - 10 mins, Savola
 - draft-savola-v6ops-security-overview-02.txt
 - introduce the approach and justify the need; discuss changes.
 - GOAL: take as a WG item, solicit an editor.

Assisted Tunneling Requirements - 15 mins, Durand
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt
 - go through open issues, discuss
 - GOAL: resolve issues, revise and advance after IETF60

Tunnel-endpoint Discovery, 10 mins, Palet?
 - draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-01.txt
 - discuss different approaches to discover the v6-in-v4 endpoint
   (to be used with assisted tunneling and maybe others)
 - GOAL: get more feedback, adopt as WG item?

Secure IPv6 Tunneling - 10 mins, Graveman
 - draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure-tunnels-00.txt
 - discuss the method of using IPsec to create secure v6-in-v4 tunnels
 - GOAL: get more input, adopt as WG item?
 
Protocol-41 Forwarding in NAT boxes - 10 mins, Palet
 - [to be: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-05.txt]
 - GOAL: discuss changes and approach, adopt as WG item for Informational

Measurement of Misbehaving DNS Servers - 5 mins, Savola channeling Malone
 - (based on draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-01.txt)
 - GOAL: show relative numbers of misbehaving servers vs IPv6 records

Second session
==============
(Tentatively scheduled for Friday morning, hopefully will change)

[If good discussion is generated on the discussion items on the first
session, add time to discuss those here]

IPv6 replacement for NAT boxes etc. - 10 mins, van de Welde?
 - [no draft]
 - GOAL: present early work on an Informational draft on how to deploy
   v6 in environments where NATs and/or private addressing were used.

Moving forward, take two, 30 mins, Chairs/ADs
 - [placeholder]
 - GOAL: continue tuning the process as necessary

IPv6 Mobility Scenarios/Requirements update, 10 mins, Williams
 - [follow-up on draft-yamamoto-mipv6node-v4trav-00.txt]
 - GOAL: follow up from where we left off with in the last meeting

"Auto-transition": picking the right mechanism - 10 mins, Palet
 - draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans-00.txt
 - GOAL: discuss the concepts, whether useful for the WG.

Distributed v6 security requirements/problem statement - 10 mins, Palet
 - draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6security-00.txt
 - draft-vives-v6ops-ipv6-security-ps-00.txt
 - GOAL: get input from the WG

[These might at least might drop off from the agenda if there are no
significant updates or interest:]

Transition mechanisms update, 5 mins, Chairs/Savola
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-03.txt
 - GOAL: discuss how to address the DNS lookup ordering issue

IPv6-on-by-Default - 5 mins, ?
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt
 - GOAL: discuss what has been happening with this work

IPv6 Renumbering Procedures - 5 mins, Baker?
 - draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-renumber-procedure-01.txt
 - GOAL: discuss major issues, if raised during the IESG evaluation

Advanced L3 IPv6 Exchange Model - 10 mins, Palet
 - draft-morelli-v6ops-ipv6-ix-00.txt
 - GOAL: get input from the WG
=============

---

From: "Liu Min" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:14:08 +0800

Hi:
I have already requested for a time slot for 5 min to introduce the
latest development & demonstration of Silkroad and discuss how to go
forward. I'm very surprised that I have not received any feedback to
tell me whether my application is accepted or not. But there is no
arrangement in the draft agenda. :(
Could you please tell me whether I have the chance to give my
presentation?

Best Wishes,

Liu Min

Institute of Computing Technology
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Tel: (86-10) 6256 5533-9240 
E-mail: [email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 4:23 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: draft agenda for v6ops at IETF60
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:48:39 +0300 (EEST)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Liu Min wrote:
> arrangement in the draft agenda. :( Could you please tell me whether
> I have the chance to give my presentation?

The primary reasoning for excluding this request from the agenda was
that there isn't sufficient time, energy or need for covering all the
mechanisms out there (and just having a presentation of one or a 
couple of them might be unfair).

It looks like the discussion could also be held on the list -- as a 
matter of fact, I think there already was a long debate.

(I personally recall the discussion ended silently, but it seemed as
if Silkroad was a tunnel broker with UDP encapsulation for traversing
NATs.  But we have already had those on the table for years..)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "Liu Min" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:27:02 +0800

Firstly, I think if you want to reject one application, you should give a
feedback with the reason before you publish the draft agenda instead of
"excluding silently". At least it's a good manner for chairman.

Secondly, you said just having a presentation of one or a couple of
mechanisms might be unfair (in your letter), did you mean that no mechanism
will give presentation in the IETF60?

In addition, I don't understand why you said the discussion ended silently.
How do you make such judgment, one discussion is "ended" or "not ended"? 
 
Best Wishes,

Liu Min

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:49 AM
> To: Liu Min
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: draft agenda for v6ops at IETF60
>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:40:56 -0700

>  - GOAL: discuss major issues, if raised during the IESG evaluation

I'm looking at http://www.ietf.org/meetings/agenda_60.html, and I don't see 
v6ops listed. I thought it used to be... Are you sure we are Monday and Friday?

So far, the IESG has not commented on the draft, or at least I have not 
seen the comments.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:20:14 +0300 (EEST)

> v6ops listed. I thought it used to be... Are you sure we are Monday and Friday?

The HTML version just hasn't been updated yet; TXT shows us there (for 
the moment at least).

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:45:59 +0900

>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:23:23 +0300 (EEST), 
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> said:

> morning.  Let's hope that the latter one, at least, changes.

Has this schedule been fixed?

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:34:50 +0100

> Has this schedule been fixed?

How about getting v6ops back into the mainstream agenda and moving
something from Thursday... bmwg might be a good candidate...?  

Tim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:35:02 +0300 (EEST)

> > Has this schedule been fixed?

To answer Jinmei's question: the schedule is not cast in stone yet
("fixed" in one meaning) but it hasn't been changed at least yet
("fixed in another meaning).
 
> something from Thursday... bmwg might be a good candidate...?  

Let's see what can be done.. the scheduling is really tight.  If the
slot would be on Friday, I don't think we could use more than 1 - 1.5
hours out of it in any case..

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:14:40 +0100

> hours out of it in any case..

Thanks, it would be really nice to get the v6ops slot into the mainstream
program, and Thursday am looks like a reasonable option.   I think quite a
few people have been caught out by the unusual scheduling.

Tim

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:49:37 -0700

Hello Pekka,

I would like to request an agenda slot to discuss:

  http://www.geocities.com/osprey67/v6v4inet-01.txt
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-v6v4inet-00.txt

(The -01 updates the current -00 and will be submitted after
the I-D repository re-opens.)

The document discusses a general framework for IPv6/IPv4
coexistence and, as such, is not specific to any particular
mechanism. The abstract appears below:

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

Abstract

   The IPv6 128-bit address space was designed as a solution for the
   32-bit limitation of IPv4, but the proliferation of IPv4 in the
   global Internet continues via private addressing domains behind
   Network Address Translators (NATs). Furthermore, a formerly popular
   viewpoint that IPv6 networks would soon replace IPv4 networks seems
   to be yielding to an emerging viewpoint of long-term coexistence.
   This document proposes a coexistence scenario with IPv6 for end-to-
   end addressing and IPv4 for inter-networking.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:08:27 -0400

Hi Tim,

What is "unusual" about the fact that v6ops is scheduled for Friday 
morning?  The dates for this meeting have always included Friday. 
Preference is given to scheduling one slot for every WG.  So, it 
seems sensible that v6ops' second slot would be on Friday.

Have the v6ops chairs given any thought to scaling this WG down to 
one slot per meeting?  There aren't that many open drafts...

Margaret

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:51:19 +0100

> one slot per meeting?  There aren't that many open drafts...

Sorry Margaret, I didn't write that message very well.

By unusual, I just mean that I don't recall an IPv6 or v6ops session
having been on a Friday morning in recent memory,  i.e. "usually" v6ops 
is on Mon-Thu, and Fridays are normally "lesser" BOF type meetings.

I got curious, so here's the track record of the last two years of IETF
Friday sessions (taken from the IETF web site, so don't shoot me for any
mistakes...):

IETF 59:
No Friday session

IETF 58:
0900-1130 Morning Sessions
Salon A APP xmpp Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol WG 
Salon B OPS capwap Control and Provisioning of Wireless Access Points BOF 
Duluth OPS radext RADIUS EXTensions BOF 
Salon D TSV mmusic Multiparty Multimedia Session Control WG * 
Rochester TSV nfsv4 Network File System Version 4 WG 

IETF 57:
0900-1130 Morning Sessions
Hall NO INT dna Detecting Network Attachment BOF 
Hall GH OPS capwap Control And Provisioning of Wireless Acc. Points BOF 
Hall IK TSV tsvwg Transport Area Working Group * 

IETF 56:
0900-1130 Morning Sessions
Continental 1-4 GEN problem Problem Statement BOF * 
Imperial B OPS psamp Packet Sampling WG 
Imperial A TSV intersec Transport Service at Intermediary BOF 
Continental 8 TSV sigtran Signaling Transport WG 

IETF 55:
No Friday session

IETF 54:
0900-1130 Morning Sessions
Room 301/302 GEN ipr Intellectual Property Rights BOF * 

It's not a track record of heavyweight sessions, with all due respect to 
the above WGs :)   

Indeed, there have been just six "real" WG sessions in six meetings that are
not BOFs, i.e. one per year.   SO I'd argue Friday WG sessions are "unusual"
in that regard.

So I made the wrong assumption about Fridays, and I've learnt my lesson 
the hard way now, and am just disappointed I can now only make one v6ops 
session.

Other IPv6 people I know have made the same mistake, and have learnt
with me.    Maybe there's a wider similar perception of Friday am that
can be addressed somehow?

In my case the choice of flight back was also a factor, not helped by BA
having withdrawn the direct UK flight - my flight ended up being 500 GBP
more than last time I went to SD, and I had to take an earlier flight
to avoid it being over 1000 GBP.   I guess US attendees don't have that
particular problem...

Thanks for listening if you read this far :)

Tim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:11:19 +0300 (EEST)

> hours out of it in any case..

FYI -- the second session has been rescheduled for Thursday Morning at 
least for now:

THURSDAY, August 5, 2004
0800-1700 IETF Registration - Harbor Island Foyer
0800-0900 Continental Breakfast - Harbor Island Foyer
0900-1130 Morning Sessions      
GEN   newtrk    New IETF Standards Track Discussion WG
INT   dnsext    DNS Extensions WG *
INT   hip       Host Identity Protocol WG
OPS   v6ops     IPv6 Operations WG
RTG   mpls      Multi Protocol Label Switching WG
SEC   mass      Message Authentication Signature Standards BOF
TSV   tsvwg     Transport Area Working Group

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 10:26:57 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

> mechanism. The abstract appears below:

The way I read it, this appears to be a usage case and quite detailed
specification for "inside-out" ISATAP deployment model (the whole
Internet is considered as an ISATAP domain in a way), with all the bad
(and good, though possibly not so significant) that it will bring.  
This is IMHO not a (general) framework at all.

As such, I'm having hard time seeing this on the agenda, but if
sufficiently many people from the WG voice their support for getting
this discussed there, let's reconsider.

---

From: "schakra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:16:48 -0400

I would like inform this WG that there is a new I-D on the use of IPv6 Flow
Label for traffic engineering, it provides many advantages over MPLS and ATM
but has some issues also.  I would like to request the Chairs to allow me to
brief this (5 min.) if it is not too late a request. 

The draft is available at -

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chakravorty-6lsa-00.txt

Thanks,
Sham Chakravorty
Mitre

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Pekka Savola
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 4:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft agenda for v6ops at IETF60

THURSDAY, August 5, 2004

---

From: "schakra" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:18:03 -0400

Thanks,
Sham Chakravorty
Mitre

-----Original Message-----

THURSDAY, August 5, 2004

---

From: "Liu Min" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:56:03 +0800

I find the first session of v6ops was removed from the draft agenda of the
IETF60.
What it means?

Best Wishes,

Liu Min

> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 4:11 AM
> To: [email-masked]