Subject: [v6ops] State of play

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 12:40:02 -0700

IESG: In Last Call
	2017-05-23	draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host
	2017-05-22	draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix

WG: Unupdated WG Document
	2017-03-13	draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations

WG: Updated WG Document
	2017-05-29	draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis
	2017-05-05	draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs
	2017-04-10	draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis

Individual Submission: Unupdated 
	2017-03-27	draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost
	2017-03-13	draft-gont-v6ops-host-configuration
	2017-03-13	draft-petrescu-v6ops-ipv6-power-ipv4
	2017-02-24	draft-shi-v6ops-caba
	2017-01-28	draft-xli-v6ops-cernet-deployment

For IETF 99, we expect to have two presentations. One is from Marcus Keane of Microsoft, regarding their effort to turn IPv4 off in their corporate network. The other is from Vaibhav Bajpai, TU Munich, "A Longitudinal View of Dual-stacked Websites — Failures, Latency and Happy Eyeballs". In both cases, we are looking at IPv6-only networking issues. We will also have discussion of each of our four active working group drafts (ula-usage-considerations having been updated just before IETF 98 and not discussed). 

If folks have additional drafts they would like to discuss, now would be the time to file them, and then promote discussion on the list. We can add drafts to the agenda that the working group expresses interest in.

---

From: David Schinazi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 12:57:14 -0700

Hi Fred,

We're planning on adding a NAT64 section to draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis,
and would like to discuss that and other updates since Chicago at IETF99.
Would it be possible to get a slot on the agenda?

Thanks,
David

> On May 30, 2017, at 12:40, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> IESG: In Last Call
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 13:25:02 -0700

I said I expected discussion of our four WG drafts. This is one of them. So, yes. Please update it and plan to discuss the changes from IETF 98.

> On May 30, 2017, at 12:57 PM, David Schinazi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Fred,
>