Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] Meeting proposal (Wed May 28th, 8:00EDT/14:00CET/20:00CST): Merging 3315bis and 3633

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 16:14:16 +0200

Folks,
We have successfully uploaded -01, which addresses almost all A category
tickets. Our plan assumes that the next step is to actually merge the PD
text from RFC3633 into 3315bis, publish -02 and then start working on B
category tickets. I'd like to have a meeting to talk about how exactly
to do the merge.

Agenda is pretty simple this time:
1. Brief summary of recent work
2. 3315bis+3633 merge work
3. Next steps (including deadlines)

Let me know if you have other topics for discussion.

I hope that the slot we used last time will work for us again. Let's
meet this Wednesday (May 28) 8:00 EDT/14:00CEST/20:00CST. If this
timeslot does not work for you, please let Bernie and me know ASAP.

We'd like to try a new on-line meeting tool called JitMeet. Please go to
the following link: https://jitsi.tools.ietf.org/rekvu6i2vczvvx6r
It seems pretty cool. Make sure you connect from a device that has
microphone and optionally a camera. The link is active already, so feel
free to make some trials. It worked pretty good when Bernie and I made
some tests. The only slight disadvantage may be an echo. Hopefully using
headphones should fix the problem.

Bernie & Tomek

---

From: Marcin Siodelski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 16:36:29 +0200

The proposed date/time works for me.

One of the topics (or subtopics of RFC3633 merge) should be if we need
additional updates in the terminology. In particular, there is a
question whether we should come up with a new term that could be used
for "addresses and prefixes". There will be a lot of places in a common
text talking about IA processing and what each IA may or may not carry
(sections about message transmission and processing). The RFC3315 uses
"addresses in IA", RFC3633 uses "prefixes in IA_PD". The combined text
could use something like "resources in IA", or maybe "bindings"? Maybe
something else, or just stick to "addresses or prefixes" everywhere....

I think this problem has been popping up in various emails but I am not
certain if we ever had any conclusion.

Marcin

On 26/05/14 16:14, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Dhcpv6bis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcpv6bis
>

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 17:04:28 +0200

> something else, or just stick to "addresses or prefixes" everywhere....
Good point. I'm not sure if "binding" is the right word as in some cases
there are no bindings formed yet (e.g. when client sends SOLICIT or
server sends ADVERTISE). So perhaps better term would be to use "resource"?

Anyway, Michael did preliminary work regarding terminology in ticket
#49: http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/49 and posted
results to this ML on April 2nd.

> certain if we ever had any conclusion.
I don't think we had.

Tomek

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 12:55:56 -0400

> timeslot does not work for you, please let Bernie and me know ASAP.

okay. I may be 5 minutes late.

    > It seems pretty cool. Make sure you connect from a device that has

I tried it last week and had some problems, but they fixed some of them, it
is getting better; let's try it out.
(but: better have a backup PSTN number)

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 12:58:19 -0400

> results to this ML on April 2nd.

My point was that the term was "IA", not "Identity Association".
We never use it expanded... so our new noun is IA.