Subject: Fw: [edu-team] IETF 67 generalist technical tutorials

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:45:53 -0500

If we're getting close to "calling the question" on technical tutorials, I 
thought it might be worth discussing whether the current ""generalist 
technical tutorials" (roughly, "Security" and "DNS") are the only generalist 
tutorials we will need, or whether we should be expecting to build and 
maintain a stable of tutorials.

I provided some proposed topics, and hadn't seen a response on this yet, so 
was hoping to get discussion on the concept (if no one can think of likely 
"generalist technical tutorials", we don't need to wordsmith the charter to 
allow us to do nothing).

>>> - "Taking IPv6 into account in your IETF specification work" (this is 
>>> actually on the Int-Area agenda for IETF 65, presented by some chick 
>>> named Margaret Wasserman, with the following outline:
>>>   - Common errors that people have made
>>>   - How to properly take IPv6 into account,
>>> and I think it's likely that there are people who need to think about 
>>> IPv6 outside the INT area :-)
>>>
>>> - the current state of end-to-end and NAT traversal (I wish Cullen 
>>> wasn't on the IESG, sometimes, but other people who are active in this 
>>> area include Jonathan Rosenberg, Dan Wing, and Francois Audet).
>>>
>>> - Internationalization (Harald Alvestrand or, in a splendid burst of 
>>> irony - John Klensin!)

Based on John's notes, it's likely that the last topic is really "Key issues 
in Internationalization", or something, but it's really sad if working 
groups have to cover it in specifications and we can't explain what it is or 
ways people try to achieve it...

Thanks,

Spencer 

_______________________________________________
edu-team mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-team

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:20:28 -0400

Hi,

personal opinion:

i think that we should be offering the generalist introductions to  
many of the protocols that have been developed by IETF WGs.

i don't think we should cover new and developing technology that has  
not been rfc'ed yet.  but do believe we should be able to consider  
any mature topic (so i would not include IDN - which i believe is in  
a state of flux at the moment).

i do believe there is a severe specialization problem in the ietf.    
when i first got involved with the ietf in the early 90's this was  
considered a bad thing.  and i have not seen anything to convince me  
that this original IETF value was a mistake.

so, i don't have a finite set of topics, but rather think that any  
ietf technology that is being used widely, and that could either be  
affected by or affect the behavior of, other protocols or the network  
itself, should be considered for technical tutorial if the expert to  
cover it can be found.

on your topics, i, for example would not include IPv6 yet since this  
is not in wide use and the controversy around it is still too great.   
and i would probably avoid NAT because it is another area of  
controversy where we cannot come to agreement on: is NAT a savior or  
a destroyer, should we worry about the behavior of NAT in V6, is the  
only good NAT one that is shimmed into the stack ....

whereas technology like SIP and friends, (G)MPLS, BGP behavior, TCP  
and congestion, ... seem to me to be candidates.  it is not that  
there is nothing new being done on these, or that there may still not  
be some areas of controversy, but in general the topics are fairly  
stable.

a.

On 20 apr 2006, at 23.45, Spencer Dawkins wrote:

> If we're getting close to "calling the question" on technical  
> tutorials, I thought it might be worth discussing whether the  
> current ""generalist technical tutorials" (roughly, "Security" and  
> "DNS") are the only generalist tutorials we will need, or whether  
> we should be expecting to build and maintain a stable of tutorials.
>
> I provided some proposed topics, and hadn't seen a response on this  
> yet, so was hoping to get discussion on the concept (if no one can  
> think of likely "generalist technical tutorials", we don't need to  
> wordsmith the charter to allow us to do nothing).
>
>>>> - "Taking IPv6 into account in your IETF specification  
>>>> work" (this is actually on the Int-Area agenda for IETF 65,  
>>>> presented by some chick named Margaret Wasserman, with the  
>>>> following outline:
>>>> and I think it's likely that there are people who need to think  
>>>> about IPv6 outside the INT area :-)
>>>>
>>>> - the current state of end-to-end and NAT traversal (I wish  
>>>> Cullen wasn't on the IESG, sometimes, but other people who are  
>>>> active in this area include Jonathan Rosenberg, Dan Wing, and  
>>>> Francois Audet).
>>>>
>>>> - Internationalization (Harald Alvestrand or, in a splendid  
>>>> burst of irony - John Klensin!)
>
> Based on John's notes, it's likely that the last topic is really  
> "Key issues in Internationalization", or something, but it's really  
> sad if working groups have to cover it in specifications and we  
> can't explain what it is or ways people try to achieve it...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Spencer
>
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:15:27 +0200

>>>> - "Taking IPv6 into account in your IETF specification work" (this 
>>>> is actually on the Int-Area agenda for IETF 65, presented by some 
>>>> chick named Margaret Wasserman, with the following outline:

BTW, this was really the main point of the IPv6 WG that I co-chaired
in the Global Grid Forum a couple of years ago. And we did produce
two documents, the first of which seems relevant here (and could maybe
help MRW).

  Guidelines for IP version independence in GGF specifications
  http://www.ggf.org/documents/GFD.40.pdf
  Survey of IPv4 Dependencies in Global Grid Forum Specifications
  http://www.ggf.org/documents/GFD.41.pdf

My point being that the document has two authors who are IETF
participants too.

     Brian

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:27:43 -0400

Avri,

I find your note interesting.

On the one hand, you seem to clearly say general tutorials are a

> a state of flux at the moment).

And you include IPv6 in that list of topics not to be covered. And
also exclude (from tutorials) stuff of a "controversial" nature. 

>From an EDU perspective, they key high-level  purpose (as I
understand it and is in the current charter) is:

> The Education (EDU) Team manages the internal education efforts of
> the IETF with the goal of enabling IETF operational improvement.
> The elements of this effort include improving the efficiency of IETF
> WG efforts and increasing the effectiveness of IETF leaders and
> participants by highlighting and clarifying their roles and
> responsibilities and by instruction on the means by which they can
> be effective in those roles.

But if we exclude topics that relate to ongoing WG activities, I think
that we are only left with general tutorials that are rather far
removed from the core EDU goal of "making the IETF work better". Sure,
general tutorials could help some (in an epsilon sense), but I think
the improvement here (in the overall scheme of things) would simply be
too small for the effort. Again, we have much bigger fish to fry.

Also, your note (intentionally?) doesn't say whether you think such
tutorials should be in-scope or out-of-scope for EDU. You just say
that such tutorials would be good. It is the former question that we
need to answer, not the latter.

Thomas

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:12:39 -0400

> I find your note interesting.

having something called interesting is always interesting.
and somewhat worrisome.

> also exclude (from tutorials) stuff of a "controversial" nature.

yes, even though there are lots of v6 RFCs, i don't consider it to be  
a mature deployed technology.

I think i was posing three requirements:

>> i don't think we should cover new and developing technology that  
>> has not been rfc'ed yet.

and

>> but rather think that any ietf technology that is being used  
>> widely, and that could either be affected by or affect the  
>> behavior of, other protocols or the network itself, should be  
>> considered for technical tutorial if the expert to cover it can be  
>> found.

and

>> it is not that there is nothing new being done on these, or that  
>> there may still not be some areas of controversy, but in general  
>> the topics are fairly stable.

i.e.

- should be rfc'ed already
- should be wide deployed.
- there should not be raging controversy

for me, IPv6 does not meet the second 2 conditions, whereas MPLS does.

i don't think i was saying:

- the WG should be dormant and no longer working on the protocol
- that there should be no controversy.  in 15 years of ietf i have  
never seen a protocol, wg, or leader without controversy (well maybe  
Fred at the end of his first term)

e.g. MPLS and CCAMP and all the spin-offs are still working  
feverishly on label switching technologies.  there are some  
controversies about some of the new stuff (e.g OAM, muticast or  
upstream label assignment)  but we are not bitterly engaged in the  
argument between RSVP and CR-LDP or whether we even need MPLS or if  
it will ever be deployed.

> removed from the core EDU goal of "making the IETF work better".

that wasn't my goal.  and if you could read that from what i wrote,  
then i mis-wrote.  i believe that it should not be technology that is  
still raw and being formed.

we should teach about existing technology not about open arguments.

> Sure,

I guess i believe that the specialization of IETF participants is as  
big a problem in effectively moving good work forward as the  
organizational deficiencies.  It will not help if we find a way to  
produce garbage (for some definition of garbage - in this case work  
that ignores the rest of the protocol/network environment) more  
effectively.

> need to answer, not the latter.

no, i was not intentionally leaving that open.

i think that educational activities that are a good idea, from an  
IETF perspective, should be in-scope within the edu team's charter.   
i think our time and abilities will determine how much work we get  
done within that scope.

for the record i do not believe that the IETF needs a second edu team  
for topics that are out of scope for this edu.

as for the topic of wether we need to go to IETF consensus for every  
new class: i think that is unnecessary.  i think the Gen Area AD can  
make the decision of whether:
  - the new class is ok
  - he or she (i still have hope for a woman in the job someday)  
needs iesg/iab advise before deciding
  - or it needs a rechartering and thus is a IETF consensus call.

thanks

a.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 10:46:57 -0500

Just agreeing with everything that I can agree with, as quickly as 
possible...

Thanks,

Spencer

From: "Avri Doria" <[email-masked]>
>>> not been rfc'ed yet.

I am sympathetic with the thought being expressed.

In SIP, there are HUGE concepts floating along at the working group 
draft-one revision per IETF cycle level (GRUU as an example), that are 
roughly stable, but aren't approved yet. Since there are so many of these, 
I'd hate to have them all excluded automatically.

After looking at Avri's examples (RSVP vs LDP), I agree that presenting 
topics where there are fundamental decisions that the working group hasn't 
made yet, is not our job.

> and
>
>>> but rather think that any ietf technology that is being used  widely, 
>>> and that could either be affected by or affect the  behavior of, other 
>>> protocols or the network itself, should be  considered for technical 
>>> tutorial if the expert to cover it can be  found.

I agree with this as far as it goes. Would ", or is used by other protocols" 
be useful, especially where the "how to use it well" discussion pops up? I'm 
thinking of the DNS tutorial's target audience, "people who are assuming 
that they can just put stuff in DNS and everything will be fine".

>
> and
>
>>> it is not that there is nothing new being done on these, or that  there 
>>> may still not be some areas of controversy, but in general  the topics 
>>> are fairly stable.

I think it's important to distinguish between the controversy of the thing 
being taught and the controversy of what's being taught about it. The SIP 
community is building a lot of assumptions about NAT traversal into other 
specifications. NATs will be controversial in the IETF until the last one of 
us dies, but it might be OK to talk about STUN/TURN/ICE so they get used 
(as) appropriately (as NATs are going to be used).

> i think that educational activities that are a good idea, from an  IETF 
> perspective, should be in-scope within the edu team's charter.   i think 
> our time and abilities will determine how much work we get  done within 
> that scope.
>
> for the record i do not believe that the IETF needs a second edu team  for 
> topics that are out of scope for this edu.

Good to know. I don't actually care what the answer is, but I don't want to 
say "not here" and then find out there is no "there".

> as for the topic of wether we need to go to IETF consensus for every  new 
> class: i think that is unnecessary.  i think the Gen Area AD can  make the 
> decision of whether:
>  - the new class is ok
>  - he or she (i still have hope for a woman in the job someday)  needs 
> iesg/iab advise before deciding
>  - or it needs a rechartering and thus is a IETF consensus call

This works for me.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:56:31 +0200

Hi Avri,

Mostly agree with you, but see below, in-line ...

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:20:28 -0400
> Para: EDU Team <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [edu-team] IETF 67 generalist technical tutorials
> 
> Hi,
> 
> personal opinion:
> 

I tend to disagree here ...

I think there is much more IPv6 deployment that what we actually see.

The reason for that is there are transition mechanisms that make it
automatic for lots of folks and didn't notice they are using it.

If you use Windows XP and MSN for file transfers, probably you didn't
noticed it, right ?

When ISPs measure IPv6 traffic, they measure what they see, but they don't
look for proto-41 (6in4) or 6-in-udp-4 (Teredo).

I follow this very close and when we deployed by default dual stack in all
the web servers for our customers, we observed then about 11-12% of the
traffic being IPv6 already. I think is a big ammount, and surprise me, but
is there.

If you look to the traffic at 6to4 relays, you get also surprise. Thomas
will disagree here with me, but it may happen that there are easily
x.000.000 users, without knowing, at least as analyzed by a paper from Pekka
Savola.

I'm not saying is done, or there is a comparable amount of traffic versus
IPv4 (even I consider a lot anything over 10%, and I'm only looking for web
browsing traffic), but lots of applications try IPv6 and it works and then
they use it ... 

Just wait for Vista which comes with IPv6 enabled by default.

What is missed is more webmaster or other services using dual stack, but is
taking off.

>> can't explain what it is or ways people try to achieve it...

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:08:51 +0200

Just replied on this and let me add some info.

One more of the volunteer activities that I try to carry on is and IPv6
Portal (http://www.ipv6tf.org). I publish there daily news about anything
related to IPv6 and send a weekly summary every Sunday night.

Is interesting to notice that the number of subscribers raised very quickly,
in less than one year, to around 10.000, and the monthly downloads are in
the level of 12 Gbytes + 18-20 Gbytes for robots.

So, I've a lot of information about whatever services and products are
already using IPv6. I will say a total of 2.000 products and services (that
I know).

Also I helped around 150 ISPs in LAC, Europe, Africa, AP and a few in NA in
the last year or so, to deploy some IPv6 services. Most of them are not yet
public, but most are taking it very seriously to do something in just months
from now.

That's the reason why when Bob Hinden asked to move the RFCs to STDs, I
volunteered to classify the information I've in the portal database, and is
almost done. You can see it here:

http://www.ipv6-to-standard.org

(I'm not sure this should be widely published yet, and even is not finished,
but this is a small group ...).

I hope this will be finish early next week and then we will be able to
announce it, and provide a tool so everyone can add any service or product
that is not already there. I'm sure we will get at least 150-200 new
products or services registered.

Note that don't register every router model, so if Cisco has 200 models that
support IPv6, I count only 1 for router, 1 for switch, 1 for firewall, etc.
Same for ISPs. Each ISP counts only for 1 even if he offers different
classes of IPv6 services.

You will notice that most of the big carriers already have production IPv6
services, at least in Europe and Japan.

Now, let me know if you believe there are 2.000 products (and services) in
the world using MPLS ;-)

MPLS and IP are two different levels of technology. You have IP gadgets, but
is not the case for MPLS. I mean no MPLS to the desktop .. should I said yet
;-), just kidding.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 11:12:39 -0400

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:22:52 -0400

> I think there is much more IPv6 deployment that what we actually see.

ok, i might be wrong about deployment, but in following the RIR's i  
got the impression that not too many address blocks are being given  
out yet.

but even if is is deployed, it is still a red hot controversy:  
somehow every time the topic comes up in an IETF context, a good part  
of the world seems to go ballistic.

so i still think it is too hot for us to teach about.  but, assuming  
technical topics end up being in scope, this is just one opinion and  
come time to talk about new subjects, we should definitely discuss it.

a.

---

From: Radia Perlman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:46:21 -0700

There are several types of technical overviews that I think are helpful. 
For example:

a) cross-fertilization: these are overviews of areas that people might 
invest 2 hours of their time,
no money, to sit through, and might realize where technology intersects 
their own areas. Also, this
kind of overview of area A
is useful when area A needs outside reviewers, as a way of more 
painlessly helping those outsiders
come up to speed. Covered topics shouldn't just be about work going on 
in IETF, but should include technologies
that are important to understand (like how routing and addressing in 
layers 2 and 3 differ).

b) emerging and controversial topics: I don't think we should be scared 
of covering these. It's possible
that this is exactly the stage when it is most useful for
someone who hasn't been in the heated fray, or who is capable of
fairly summarizing all the points of view, can summarize why there is 
such controversy, etc. This
frankly would be good not only for outsiders, but for the people in the 
group. Especially if it can
be handled with tact and good and fair technical insight, and with care 
to really cover all the arguments.
The point of the presenter isn't to convince the audience of any one 
direction, but to explicitly explain
what the controversy is about, and what the arguments on all sides are. 
Perhaps even this could
be covered in 1/2 the time, and then let audience fill in where they 
feel arguments were unfair or
left out. Hopefully there would not be too much of that since if the 
edu-team (or its delegated presenter)
did their homework properly, they would have solicited input and review 
in advance from all
sides, and would be capable of explaining the arguments. This sort of 
thing, if done well, would
actually *defuse* controversies. They get out of hand when people feel 
they are not being listened to,
or misrepresented, or being bullied. But if someone very fairly presents 
all the points of view, then
it is clear to everyone that they have been heard.

c) specific summaries of what's going on in WGs. I'd still love to see 
the first 15 minutes of a WG in
each IETF start with a summary (not "draft-ietf-wgfoo-randomstuff-02.txt 
is at last call") that people
who haven't read the draft will understand. A summary of what's going on 
in the WG...what parts
are pretty much finished, what parts are controversial and why, what 
work needs to be designed,
what just needs editorial nitpicking. I think it's well worth the time, 
both the preparation time for
whoever presents this, and for the airtime of the meeting.

d) summaries of work in an entire area: this would be where a particular 
area is featured, say Transport,
and someone explains the general scope of the area, and then goes 
through all the WGs, what each
is doing, what stage its at, what the controversies are and what the 
arguments are (again, must be
fairly presented).

None of these are things that could be money-makers...you can only get 
an employer to pay
for you to take in-depth training on something in your job description. 
But each of
the above would make the IETF
function way better. Note that at the moment we are only doing a) (plus 
the nontechnical ones). There's
also the "how to write a security considerations section" thing that 
some people think the security tutorial
ought to be, but understanding security implications is not a mechanical 
process that can be
taught in 2 hours, so I think it is more natural to think of as just 
another cross-fertilization thing. And
just because there happens to be a requirement for a security 
considerations section doesn't make
security more "important" an area for outsiders to understand. There are 
lots of topics that
are important to understand even though there is mandatory 
"considerations" section currently.
(like internationalization, which is relevant to most application 
protocols, but probably can be ignore
by lower layer protocol designers).

Anyway...that said, I agree with Spencer that we should fix the titles 
of the general cross-fertilization
topics we've covered. I also think it would be nice to be more explicit 
about why summarizing
technologies and encouraging knowledge outside a single WG is a good thing.
But I would be OK with leaving the wording as it is, also, since I think 
we've
spent too much energy wording the charter.

Radia

Avri Doria wrote:

>> "DNS") are the only generalist tutorials we will need, or whether  we 
>> should be expecting to build and maintain a stable of tutorials.
>>
>>>>> - "Taking IPv6 into account in your IETF specification  work" 
>>>>> (this is actually on the Int-Area agenda for IETF 65,  presented 
>>>>> by some chick named Margaret Wasserman, with the  following outline:
>>>>> - Internationalization (Harald Alvestrand or, in a splendid  burst 
>>>>> of irony - John Klensin!)
>>>>
>>

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:59:36 +0200

Hi Avri,

Agree that there is still some people that believe is not working or too
soon, or whatever, but don't think that's enough to avoid training on it.

Probably the situation is similar with other protocols, and the difference
is that there has been less noise on them, so they are not so well know, or
not considered so important.

In total there are 1.492 prefixes allocated (production, not 6bone), only
around 800 being routed today (next week one more from Mexico and another
one from Kenya). Is a big distance versus IPv4, but there is a big
difference because the almost complete lack of deagregation. Its really
difficult also to compare among both considering the number of addresses
behind each prefix. If we assume /48 for each end-user, it means today
2.989.334.648 of users could have their own /48 ;-)

There is one additional point here, and is that because 6to4 (and Teredo to
some extent), each user which has an IPv6 enable hosts is actually using the
same prefix (6to4 or Teredo). For 6to4 that means only a /16 possible users
(Teredo is a regular /32).

So even in the case we agree that 800 routed prefixes doesn't mean 800 ISPs
providing service, from the end-user perspective can be considered a
different thing.

At the end the question is if we believe the IETF participants require IPv6
training and why. May be the training they need, if we already accepted that
in general there should not be any new protocol passing IESG review if
doesn't support IPv6 (unless justified), is a kind of "IPv6 protocol design
considerations". That may imply first teaching IPv6 basics.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:22:52 -0400

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:49:15 -0400

> considerations". That may imply first teaching IPv6 basics.

Thanks for the write-up.  I had not realized that the IESG had made  
this policy decision. I guess I have not been paying close attention  
to IESG pronouncements.  I will have to read that one, because such a  
decision could well have an interesting impact on the educational  
requirements.  Can you point me at where this was documented.

thanks again.

a.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 00:15:48 +0200

Hi Avri,

Actually I must say that I'm not sure if that was and IESG general
observation, or from a couple of ADs in a recent meeting (probably even the
last one).

Somebody must know in this list, I guess ... I don't want to be the cause of
a trouble I'm wrong !

I recall also some plenary discussion about this, but not sure if it was as
a result of an IESG or IAB decision or comment or a question from the mic.

If is not the case that the IESG made such statement, I'm actually wondering
why it has not been, and what are the step needed for them to take such
policy. At least in my opinion, is something that we should had considered a
couple of years ago !

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:49:15 -0400

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:13:49 +0200

> ok, i might be wrong about deployment, but in following the RIR's i  got 
> the impression that not too many address blocks are being given  out yet.

Actually, that's *good* news - if we succeed in giving out exactly one
block per ISP, we will have the degree of aggregation that CIDR can
only dream of.

> but even if is is deployed, it is still a red hot controversy:  somehow 
> every time the topic comes up in an IETF context, a good part  of the 
> world seems to go ballistic.

Sure. There were some people who were badly bruised by some of the
decisions taken ten years ago.

> so i still think it is too hot for us to teach about. 

One thing that is definitely required is that all WGs should produce
output that is IP-version agnostic, unless they are specifically chartered
for IPv4 or IPv6. And that is something that could be covered in
an EDU length tutorial. I can't see anything that makes it radioactive.

     Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:24:52 +0200

What Jordi wrote was:

> May be the training they need, if we already accepted that
> considerations".

Well, to me (speaking personally) this is *obvious* and has been for five years.
I mean, why on earth has the IETF invested so many person-years in IPv6 if
this is not true? I've certainly been applying this test to drafts since I
joined the IESG. My oldest unresolved DISCUSS is on exactly this point,
in fact.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=33990

Has the IESG pronounced on this? I have no idea.

Do we need a separate IPv6 considerations section? I don't think so. But
it's easy to check whether a MIB uses IP addresses and if so whether it
uses the appropriate definitions to include IPv6. And so on. It's a fairly
short check list (see the GGF document I cited).

     Brian

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:08:39 +0300

See below ...

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Organización: IBM
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:24:52 +0200
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: <[email-masked]>

I don't meant a new section in the documents, but a training on that.

Actually I also recall an AD having asked this question in the mic, I think
it was in Dallas in the INT open area meeting (?) and the idea was is not
needed, but if IPv6 is not in a new protocol, there should be clearly
justified why is not there.