Subject: IPv6 WG Document Status

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:00:54 -0500

All,
      The following URL contains the latest document status for all
IPv6 WG documents.  Please review and provide comments on
the mailing list.  Like San Diego, if issues arise, we can discuss
them during the meeting if needed.

http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF61/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html

Regards,
Bob & Brian
IPv6 WG co-chairs

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

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:53:37 +0200 (EET)

Let me start before the meeting ;-)

> http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/IETF61/IPv6/IPv6DocumentStatus.html

Generic comment: is token really on Margaret w/ all of those AD 
followup documents?

...

draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt
   Info AD Follow-up Token = Narten (Comments)

Actually, the token is not on Thomas AFAIR.  At the last meeting, 
there was a call who would step up and continue editing the document 
(because itojun had lost energy for it), to revise it to address the 
comments.

I recall Jinmei volunteered, so unless I'm misremembering and
something has not happened behind the curtains, the token is on him :)

...

draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-03.txt

Were there significant issues raised off-list?  There were no on-list 
comments warranting revision, at least..

...

draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt Info Ready for WG Last Call?

Should this read 'Ready for adopting as WG item?'

-- 
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: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 13:18:21 -0500

> Generic comment: is token really on Margaret w/ all of those AD  

To the best of my (and the I-D tracker's) knowledge, yes.

> something has not happened behind the curtains, the token is on him :)

Several people volunteered to work on the revision.

> comments warranting revision, at least..

I believe you are correct.  There were no issues raised
during the LC.

> Should this read 'Ready for adopting as WG item?'

Probably.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 04:19:14 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:53:37 +0200 (EET), 
>>>>> Pekka Savola <[email-masked]> said:

> something has not happened behind the curtains, the token is on him :)

I'm afraid it was not me...at least I don't recall I volunteered to
take it at that time.  But I slightly remember I made some comments on
this issue and I saw several other hands as volunteers (as Brian
clarified).

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:32:39 +0100

Just as an FYI, draft-carpenter-obsolete-1888-01.txt (Informational)
is in the RFC Editor queue. It obsoletes a former IPNGWG Experimental
RFC.

    Brian C

Brian Haberman wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:56:14 -0500

>Generic comment: is token really on Margaret w/ all of those AD 

Hi Pekka,
Sort of...  When a document is updated, the document automatically 
goes to the AD Followup state until AD decides what other state it 
should be moved to.  Sometimes that takes a little while...

Let me give a bit more information about the IPv6 documents that I 
currently have in AD Followup.

The two MIBs (draft-ietf-ipv6-inet-tunnel-mib-03.txt and 
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt) were nearly approved during 
their first IESG telechat last week.  IANA had some questions (asked 
28-Oct), so Bert is holding a discuss until those questions are 
resolved.  The authors have answered the questions (on 28-Oct and 
29-Oct), and we're waiting for confirmation from IANA that their 
issues has been addressed.  I suppose I could put these into 
"External Party", but I want to remember to follow up if we don't 
hear from IANA before the IETF meeting.

The router selection draft (draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-06.txt) 
was updated on 14-Oct to address IESG discuss comments (from Steve 
Bellovin, Bill Fenner, Bert Wijnen and Alex Zinin).  There is ongoing 
discussion (last message on 2-Nov) between the author (Dave Thaler) 
and (some of?) the discuss-holders about whether or not their 
comments have been adequately addressed.  It appears that completely 
addressing the issues will require another document re-spin, so this 
will probably go back into "Revised ID Needed" once we know what is 
required.  I have not yet figured out whether a conference call will 
be needed to discuss the issues with this document, so I am keepign 
in AD Followup for now.

The ULA document (draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-07.txt) also had 
several IESG discuss comments (from Steve Bellovin, Bill Fenner, Ted 
Hardie and Alex Zinin).  The document was updated (on 25-Oct) to 
address the most straightforward of those comments, but none of the 
ADs have indicated that their issues are fully addressed yet (by 
clearing their discuss).  I may need to review the changes and ask 
specific ADs to clear their discusses, but I haven't done that yet. 
It will definitely take at least one more round of updates to address 
all of the AD concerns with this document, though, and discussion is 
ongoing between various ADs and authors about this.  Also, there is 
an ongoing discussion of this document in ARIN that may need  to be 
considered if/when it converges on a specific recommendation.

So, all four of these documents are in AD Followup, because I need to 
track the conversations and determine what the next steps should be. 
However, I don't believe that any of these documents is blocking on 
an action from me at this particular moment.

Does that make sense?

Margaret