Subject: Closure of IPv6 WG and creation of IPv6 Maintenance WG

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:17:27 -0400

All,
     The IPv6 WG chairs have had several discussions on the future of
the IPv6 WG with our AD (Jari Arkko).  The recommended way forward is to
close the existing IPv6 WG and create an IPv6 maintenance working group.
 The attached proposed charter describes the new group.

     The sole purpose of this group is in the maintenance of the core
IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of new
solutions or changes to the specifications.  For example, the deployment
of new transition tools is out of scope of this working group.
Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group should be sent
to relevant ADs.

     Please review the proposed charter and provide comments.

Regards,
Brian & Bob

IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chair(s):

     Robert Hinden <[email-masked]>
     Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Director(s):

     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
     Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:

     Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists: [email-masked]

Description of Working Group:

The 6man working group is responsible for the maintenance, upkeep, and advancement
of the core IPv6 protocol specifications.  It is not chartered to
develop major changes or additions to the core IPv6 specification.
The working group will address protocol limitations/issues discovered during
deployment and operation.

The working group's work items are as follows:

     o Shepherd completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
     o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation document
     o Complete documentation/standardization of IPv6 over PPP Compression Negotiation
     o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses (ULA-C)

All new work items not listed above require the approval of the working
group and IESG before they will be taken on by the working group.

Goals and Milestones:

Sep 2007     Submit RH0 Deprecation specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Jan 2008     Submit PPP Compression Negotiation specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard
Jul 2008     Submit ULA-C specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:23:22 -0500

Let me just add something on this:
> For example, the deployment
This is a topic that I would like to see discussed in the
the IETF, at least in the form of asking whether we
have requirements for new work. The new maintenance
group that we are creating is not the right place for
that discussion, but I do want to have a forum. Stay
tuned.

Jari

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:24:15 +0900

>     Please review the proposed charter and provide comments.

	i think it is a bit minor, but i thought i should bring it up.

>Jul 2008     Submit ULA-C specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard

	i'm not too sure if ULA-C has wg consenssu to be the way forward.
	so i would object to this wording.

	note: there was problem raised in SIDR as to how to handle X509 certs
	for ULA (or ULA-C?  i'm not sure about it)

itojun

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:33:22 +0300

> that discussion, but I do want to have a forum. Stay

Yup. What about maintenance of existing non-core specifications, by the way?

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Nokia software specialist

---

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:37:02 -0400

>     o Complete work on Centrally Allocated Unique Local Addresses
(ULA-C)

Considering ULA as a core IPv6 protocol is a hard sell.

   - Alain.

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:58:15 -0500

Itujun,

> 	so i would object to this wording.

"Complete work" was intended to mean seeing if there is a consensus  
to move forward with some sort of central ULA.  If there is no  
consensus, then the work will be dropped.

Personally, I don't see anything close to a consensus at the moment.

Bob

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:01:33 -0400

> Yup. What about maintenance of existing non-core specifications, by the way?

Do you have an example of such a specification you are worried about?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:03:07 -0400

Alain,

> Considering ULA as a core IPv6 protocol is a hard sell.

I personally am not considering ULA a core protocol.  However, the work
on ULA (whatever the outcome) needs a home.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:05:48 -0400

Itojun,

> 	for ULA (or ULA-C?  i'm not sure about it)

The mention of ULA in SIDR was more for completeness in their discussion
of how to handle private addresses in general (including 1918 addresses
in IPv4).  One of the co-chairs of that group is actively involved in
the ULA discussion and the other co-chair and I had a long discussion on
them as well.  The outcome from SIDR is a need for them to consider how
their solutions address the use of all private addresses.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Rémi Denis-Courmont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:11:54 +0300

> Do you have an example of such a specification you are worried about?

Teredo's one that showed up at v6ops meeting.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont

---

From: "Christopher Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:28:09 -0400

On 7/26/07, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
>      o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation document
...
> group and IESG before they will be taken on by the working group.

I didn't think there was consensus on the RH0 direction yet, was there?

> Sep 2007     Submit RH0 Deprecation specification to IESG as a Proposed Standard

-Chris

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:46:14 +0200

Jari,

I hesitated about cross-posting this comment to v6ops too...

> that discussion, but I do want to have a forum. Stay

I believe that a concerted v6 deployment effort (which is not
IETF's job) is likely to start and will lead to both practical
input on operational issues (for v6ops) and to possible
identification of gaps in the specifications (for 6man and, er,
ngtrans). So a way to bring such input into the IETF is
needed, but we shouldn't forget that the deployment effort
itself will be elsewhere.

     Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:58:00 -0400

Hi Chris,

> I didn't think there was consensus on the RH0 direction yet, was there?

There was consensus to create an IPv6 WG document to address the issue
of the RH0 security hole.  The result of that consensus is what is
documented in this draft that recently went through an IPv6 WG last call.

For the history there, please see the mailing list message
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg07408.html

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Dow Street <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:35:50 -0500

> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg07408.html

It seemed as though a number of folks joined the discussion after the  
original consensus call, and that many of these individuals did not  
support deprecation.  Perhaps a new consensus call would be appropriate.

R,
Dow

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:10:30 +0100

> IPv6 protocol specifications and *not* in the development of 
> new solutions or changes to the specifications.  For example, 
> the deployment of new transition tools is out of scope of 
> this working group.
> Proposals for work beyond the scope of this working group 
> should be sent to relevant ADs.

The language in this email is quite clear. Interestingly, it is missing
from the charter text. I see that there are two kinds of new work that
could come up, and the charter should make it clear which new work falls
within the charter, and should be submitted to the WG for approval, and
which new work should not be submitted to the WG, but to other ADs.

For instance if ULA-C fails to meet consensus and in a few months,
someone comes up with a ULA-W proposal, that does not involve protocol
changes and should go to the WG for approval. But if someone comes up
with a new routing proposal which separates locaters and identifiers,
that does involve protocol changes and should go to other ADs.

--Michael Dillon

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:29:08 -0500

Yes.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:42:28 -0500

Chris, Itojun,

> 	i'm not too sure if ULA-C has wg consenssu to be the way forward.

The charter lists existing work that we are taking over
from IPv6 WG. That the charter allows working on topic
X does not in any way imply that the current documents
or direction has consensus behind them; that has to
be independently established.

That is, listing these items in the charter allows us to
continue the discussion.

Jari

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:25:48 -0700

> Teredo's one that showed up at v6ops meeting.

I think ISATAP (RFC4214) was mentioned on the v6ops list, too?

Fred
[email-masked]