Subject: [Int-area] intarea status update before IETF-81

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:52:11 -0700

Folks,

at this point we do not have anything on our plate that would require
face to face discussion thus the INTAREA WG will not meet in Quebec.

Please see below the status for our current WG drafts:

Active:

- draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update => requested expert reviews,
document shepherd working on-list with Joe to resolve issues that have
been brought up.
- draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required => currently in WGLC

IESG Processing:

- draft-ietf-intarea-router-alert-considerations => publication
requested, currently resolving comments from sponsoring AD

RFC-Editor's Queue:

- draft-ietf-intarea-server-logging-recommendations => in EDIT state.
- draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues => in AUTH48, awaiting
final approval from ADs.

Expired:
       draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels => no activity.

Below is the status of email discussions regarding non-WG drafts:

- draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-00 => currently ongoing
discussion regarding the usefulness of the proposal. No conclusion
yet.

--julien & scott

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:46:08 -0400

Thanks...

- Ralph

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:03:54 -0700

Julien & Scott,

At the last meeting, there was a scheduled timeslot for
IRON, but earlier presentations ran over and we ran out
of time. I would therefore assume that the missed timeslot
for IRON should carry over to this meeting, hence there is
something on our plate. Since IRON represents a proposed
major way forward for the Internet, it would also seem
that face to face discussion is necessary.

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Julien Laganier
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:52 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Int-area] intarea status update before IETF-81
> 
> Folks,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:43:39 -0400

On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Templin, Fred L <[email-masked]> wrote:
> something on our plate.

The confusion about strategy at the last meeting was what prompted us
to propose new ways of deciding when face-to-face time should be used.
 IRON was one of the main topics targeted for discussion on the
mailing list to see if f2f time was warranted.

> Since IRON represents a proposed

Except that discussion was solicited on the list and kind of fizzled.
I injected what I said about NEMO in hopes that someone else would
pick it up and respond somehow, but no one did.  In general, either
people understand it, or it's not urgent to them.  If topics aren't
urgent for people, then imho giving them face-to-face time isn't
urgent either.

Another thing: I will not be in Québec and there is a good chance
Julien won't be, so having a meeting will require an AD to invest
precious time in chairing it.  Someone else such as you could chair
it, but then why have it be a WG meeting?

You want a way forward for IRON.  You need to drum up support and get
collaborators.  I suggest, instead of using up IETF money on an
approach that only a few have expressed any interest in, that you
invite people out to talk about next steps, issues, promote
collaboration, etc.  Who is implementing?  What platforms?  If you
don't have enough implementors, tactically what can you do to get
more?  When can you do an interoperability test?  And so on.  Create
some multi-stakeholder enthusiasm and a group that will provide
support for it in the IETF.  How does that sound?

Scott