Subject: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-v6ops-03-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:20:14 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-v6ops-03-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-v6ops/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This looks like a fine revised charter. I had slight uneasiness about
adding 

"2.  Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
operational interaction issues with the IPv4 Internet, and determine
solutions or workarounds to those issues."

because I wondered if this will make v6ops more attractive for NAT
proposals, but if that's the right thing to do, please do the right
thing.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:35:38 -0500

Hi, Joel,

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:32 PM, joel jaeggli <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/17/15 9:20 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> > all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> > cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> > here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-v6ops/
> >
> >
> >
> >  This looks like a fine revised charter. I had slight uneasiness
> > about adding
> >
> > operational interaction issues with the IPv4 Internet, and
> > determine solutions or workarounds to those issues."
> >
> > proposals, but if that's the right thing to do, please do the
> > right thing.
>
> Given the extent to which such proposals are viewed with suspicion I
> don't think that it's likely. to the extent that v6ops has concerned
> itself with this area in the past, it has involved operational use of
> work done in behave (464xlat), or largely  how to avoid stateful nats,
> deprecation of nat-pt, multihoming without nat (really homenet has
> that remit now).

That works for me.

And thanks for the confirmation.

Spencer

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:32:29 -0700

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:26:12 +0000

> On Aug 17, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

In fairness, there is an update to RFC 6145, incorporating a erratum, RFC 6791, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation, and draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam, happening on the v6ops list right now. The obvious other working groups are either defunct or about to be. Joel told us that if v6ops could agree on the update (which is pretty close), he would take it as AD-sponsored. So, yes, there is a question of translation, and it is being driven by operational considerations.

The question that the sunset4 chairs had with Lee and I was how this fit with their charter, which is essentially about IPv4 shutdown. The current charter wording was worked out with them.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 22:59:27 -0500

Hi, Fred,

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email-masked]> wrote:

> In fairness, there is an update to RFC 6145, incorporating a erratum, RFC
> 6791, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation, and
> draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam, happening on the v6ops list right now. The
> obvious other working groups are either defunct or about to be. Joel told
> us that if v6ops could agree on the update (which is pretty close), he
> would take it as AD-sponsored. So, yes, there is a question of translation,
> and it is being driven by operational considerations.
>
> The question that the sunset4 chairs had with Lee and I was how this fit
> with their charter, which is essentially about IPv4 shutdown. The current
> charter wording was worked out with them.

Thank you for the helpful background. I'm entirely comfortable with the
proposed charter revision.

Spencer