Subject: [v6ops] State of play

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2016 06:00:11 -0800

RFC Editor: EDIT
	2015-11-23	draft-ietf-v6ops-reducing-ra-energy-consumption
	2015-10-26	draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc
	2015-10-26	draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-dc-2xlat
	2015-10-26	draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam

RFC Editor: In ISE Review
	2015-12-17	draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile

RFC Editor: RFC-EDITOR
	2015-10-19	draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem

WG: Unupdated WG Document
	2015-10-19	draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices
	2015-07-06	draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

WG: Updated WG Document
	2015-12-10	draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability
	2015-11-01	draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host

WG: WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
	2015-12-11	draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-in-real-world

Individual Submission: Unupdated 
	2015-10-19	draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
	2015-10-19	draft-xu-v6ops-dslite-redundancy
	2015-10-15	draft-gont-v6ops-ipv6-ehs-packet-drops
	2015-10-10	draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis
	2015-09-21	draft-ybai-v6ops-ipv6-for-openstack
	2015-07-06	draft-akira-v6ops-mape-experience
	2015-07-06	draft-xcf-v6ops-chinatelecom-deployment
	2015-07-05	draft-hui-v6ops-ipv6trans-select-nfv
	2015-07-05	draft-xli-v6ops-cernet-deployment
	2015-07-05	draft-yang-v6ops-ipv6tran-select

Individual Submission: Updated 
	2015-11-05	draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 05:09:20 +0000

Fred,

Just to be clear, the following:

Will no longer be updated since it was accepted as a WG document:

We plan to make updates based on the last WG meeting and email comments
for the next IETF.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops <[email-masked]> on behalf of Fred Baker
<[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, January 1, 2016 at 09:00
To: v6ops <[email-masked]>
Subject: [v6ops] State of play

>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:33:02 +0000

No problem. When you next submit an update for draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, the tool will ask you whether it replaces any existing drafts. If you say "yes, it replaces draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host", the individual submission will drop out of the list the IETF tools give me.

There is another option, though. On the list, you discussed excising some Comcast-specific elements from The WG draft, making that draft be entirely about the generalized type of service (which seems like a good idea). One option would be to keep the Comcast-specific parts in draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, which continues to exist. Another obvious option would be to file those under a new draft name, in which case I would argue that the WG draft replaces the individual one.

Your call. Either way works for me.

> On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Brzozowski, John <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Fred,
>

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 20:35:53 +0000

I will confer with Gunter and advise by email to the WG.  Either way a new
I-D will likely appear to carry some of the content that is in the current
draft.

John
+1-484-962-0060

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Monday, January 4, 2016 at 13:33
To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email-masked]>
Cc: v6ops <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] State of play

>No problem. When you next submit an update for
>draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, the tool will ask you
>whether it replaces any existing drafts. If you say "yes, it replaces
>draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host", the individual submission
>will drop out of the list the IETF tools give me.
>
>There is another option, though. On the list, you discussed excising some
>Comcast-specific elements from The WG draft, making that draft be
>entirely about the generalized type of service (which seems like a good
>idea). One option would be to keep the Comcast-specific parts in
>draft-jjmb-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host, which continues to exist.
>Another obvious option would be to file those under a new draft name, in
>which case I would argue that the WG draft replaces the individual one.
>
>> On Jan 3, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Brzozowski, John
>><[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> Fred,
>>