Subject: [v6ops] Working up an agenda for IETF Taipei

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:17:17 -0700

We have a total of 22 current drafts at this instant, two of which don't have "v6ops" in their names. General comment to people doing drafts for v6ops: IETF tools and my small brain work better if the draft name is in the format draft-{author|ietf}-{wg}-text-nn.txt

4 are not subject to current discussion:

	draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-02.txt
	draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-update-00.txt
	draft-templin-v6ops-isops-14.txt
	draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-04.txt

2 have been sent to 6man as containing protocol changes:

	draft-vanrein-v6ops-6bed4-00.txt
	draft-asati-v6ops-dad-loopback-01.txt

6 are in the IESG's queues somewhere:

	draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-01.txt
	draft-gundavelli-v6ops-pmipv6-address-reservations-03.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-happy-eyeballs-04.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps-08.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-00.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-07.txt

5 are on my list to discuss

	draft-kuarsingh-wireline-incremental-ipv6-02.txt
	draft-jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences-02.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-v6nd-problems-00.txt
	draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-01.txt
	draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6-only-experience-00.txt

5 are looking for working group support

	draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-00.txt
	draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-00.txt
	draft-carpenter-v6ops-icp-guidance-00.txt
	draft-liu-v6ops-ula-usage-analysis-00.txt
	draft-jiang-v6ops-v4v6mc-proxy-00.txt

I am told to expect an update to draft-sunq-v6ops-contents-transition.

I have seen some comments from customers of CERNET looking for support of draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address. Looking for other views. Inviting views on the other four new drafts and on updates posted this week.

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 01:20:52 +0000

> 	draft-jiang-v6ops-v4v6mc-proxy-00.txt

Hi, Fred and all,

This draft is suitable for v6ops since it is a 46 multicast transition solution without proposing any new protocols.

However, this draft may be more suitable for multitrans (it is a BoF for ietf 82, may make a WG afterwards). We'd like to hold the presentation till the result of multitrans. If it made a WG, we'd like to move this draft there. So, we have no plan to present this draft in the coming meeting.

Best regards,

Sheng