[12:17:22] --- brunod has joined
[12:29:47] --- phragon has joined
[12:30:19] --- phragon has left
[12:55:46] --- sakai has joined
[13:01:39] --- brabson has joined
[13:08:39] --- ggm has joined
[13:08:53] <ggm> me scribe?
[13:09:06] <ggm> [discussing V6 tracker]
[13:09:28] <ggm> proposing simple process. under issue tracker control. no different procedures for any doc
[13:09:47] <ggm> using http://rt.psg.com/
[13:11:22] <ggm> [all this was done in the ML. it doesn't need documenting here]
[13:11:38] <ggm> template is quite straightforward, copied from AAA wg
[13:12:51] <ggm> MUST fix, SHOULD fix, MAY fix priorities
[13:13:29] <ggm> then details 'this is my issue, this is how I propose its fixed...'
[13:13:34] <ggm> [examples]
[13:16:42] --- Eliot has joined
[13:20:21] <ggm> critique of method. BrianC dislikes the template. Editors want this system
[13:20:49] <ggm> Itojun suggests structured responses in the choice/fix arena
[13:21:20] <ggm> Randy Bush says 'move to substance'
[13:22:24] <ggm> 3GPP issues analysis
[13:22:30] --- perry has joined
[13:23:00] <ggm> w-g last call held, ended Oct 14. comments, maybe not enough comments
[13:23:22] <ggm> issues.
[13:23:40] <ggm> tunneling in the UE, where GPRS net doesn't do v6. what is recommended?
[13:24:07] <ggm> general soln. encourage 3Gpp ops to deploy. 6 in 4 tunnelling could be done in the UE
[13:24:09] <ggm> 2
[13:24:20] <ggm> NAT-PT, other generic translation mech? what is recommendation?
[13:24:38] <ggm> IMS on 6 only is important case
[13:24:48] <ggm> ref NAT-PT applicability
[13:24:52] <ggm> 3 other issues
[13:25:07] <ggm> cloer details for IMS scenario 1
[13:25:24] <ggm> recommend solve the general sip/sdp/v4/6/transition elsewhere
[13:25:40] <ggm> need to discourage 6 only UE deployment for longer
[13:25:57] <ggm> dual stack is most probable UE deployment. recommendation seems sensible
[13:26:19] <ggm> routing protocol, based tunnels as solution alternative to 3gpp ops net?
[13:26:33] <ggm> leave details to other docs, cut text from elsewhere
[13:27:02] <ggm> please give comments, now or on ML. aiming for revision -08 ship to IESG in Dec 2003
[13:27:19] <ggm> [s/cloer/closer/]
[13:27:25] <perry> Itojun and others will kill me, but I think encouraging v6 only + NAT PT is not a bad idea...
[13:27:42] <ggm> yes. itojun{...} will kill you :--
[13:28:02] <perry> :)
[13:28:31] <ggm> nokia shipped demo handsets dual stack, announced on some ee tech list I think.. so its not suprising they say its the best strategy!
[13:29:09] <ggm> ISP networks, Mikael Lind
[13:29:17] <ggm> 'the next exciting topic'
[13:29:38] <ggm> scenarios updated from comments, published analysis. team members changed.
[13:30:12] <ggm> review of scenarios doc.
[13:30:31] --- Eliot has left: Logged out
[13:32:05] <ggm> update: bulked up the doc. updates to network description, examples combined 2 chapters about status/transition into one. added more scenarios
[13:32:05] --- Eliot has joined
[13:32:43] <ggm> retained the generic approach. now has concrete net examples, based on basic net views examples are to beused to illustrate things, verify.
[13:32:56] <ggm> unresolved issues/questions.
[13:33:13] <ggm> do the scenarios need more detail? still open issue
[13:33:45] <ggm> examples for illustration,verification, or for analysis?
[13:34:07] <ggm> is the v4 current techniques doc useful or neccessary?
[13:35:16] <ggm> current doc has loose core/access/exchange separation. should it be improved? if so, what could be done instead?
[13:35:55] <ggm> simon latham. problems with this model, exchanges. divide into internal/external connectivity.
[13:36:09] --- dcrocker has joined
[13:36:28] <ggm> always stumble across this exchange idea, doesn't mean the same to me as to you.
[13:37:23] <ggm> Analysis doc.
[13:38:21] <ggm> doesn't point out the best solution (YET) it just lists them.
[13:38:23] --- Eliot has left
[13:38:27] <ggm> no examples
[13:38:35] <ggm> (work underway)
[13:39:37] <ggm> Qs to WG.
[13:39:46] <ggm> is this the right approach? does the doc give us what we need?
[13:40:08] <ggm> where is more detail needed?
[13:41:03] <ggm> talk about address planning/sourcing? redundant.
[13:42:37] <ggm> direction: continue current direction. add examples
[13:42:50] <ggm> WAKE UP
[13:42:54] <ggm> [blink]
[13:43:14] --- brunod has left: Disconnected
[13:43:48] <ggm> good enough for heading off? [same number as read it] nem con.
[13:43:56] --- jis has joined
[13:45:10] <ggm> Kurtis at the mike
[13:45:23] <ggm> analysis doc more useful.
[13:47:58] <ggm> coming up, unmanaged connectivity.
[13:48:09] <ggm> considerations for ipv6 tunnelling in small end sites
[13:48:27] <ggm> based on things some of us have been noticing in other drafts, thinkings.
[13:49:16] <ggm> need help with issues to decide on tradeoffs.
[13:49:23] <ggm> kickstart unman eval work
[13:50:17] <ggm> still formulating desireable properties
[13:51:08] --- jm has joined
[13:52:08] <ggm> [ggm has to take pissbreak. sorry. the blog endeth here briefly]
[13:52:19] --- phragon has joined
[13:53:44] --- phragon has left
[13:54:32] --- dcrocker has left: Disconnected
[14:02:34] --- dcrocker has joined
[14:04:30] <ggm> [back -ggm]
[14:04:54] <ggm> 4 comments to draft. how to proceed? floor speaks.
[14:05:25] <ggm> huitema.
[14:05:39] <ggm> this wg doing lots of analysis. not much actual work.
[14:05:58] <ggm> help to people deploying apps, nets. concerned by arrival of more and more analysis docs, but
[14:06:06] <ggm> with no practical help/outcomes. skeptical.
[14:06:18] <ggm> [author] fair comment. but need some of this too
[14:06:40] <ggm> hard to move on unless get consensus on these analyses
[14:07:12] <ggm> hinden I share christians concern. time to move on
[14:10:15] <ggm> Sabastian Roy, v6 on by default.
[14:11:45] <ggm> what happens when a dual stack host goes into an env. with less than adequate v6 connectivity?
[14:12:07] <ggm> default addr selection. interactions with destination addr ordering. rules here could be problem
[14:19:09] <ggm> [sorry. lost it. fell alseep ;-(]
[14:19:24] --- Eliot has joined
[14:19:44] <ggm> need robustness improvements fot TCP handling of soft errors
[14:20:16] <ggm> Rob Austein. old assumptions about bad links coming back to haunt us
[14:20:34] <ggm> <?> ping people in transport area about this?
[14:21:55] <ggm> discussion about syn-recd state, routing
[14:27:27] --- Eliot has left: Logged out
[14:27:33] --- Eliot has joined
[14:28:43] --- Eliot has left
[14:32:36] --- Eliot has joined
[14:34:30] --- Eliot has left
[14:36:30] <ggm> [sorry guys. I lost it again. I tink its delayed jetlag -ggm]
[14:41:41] --- sakai has left
[14:42:17] <ggm> finished early.
[14:42:23] --- ggm has left
[14:48:04] --- perry has left: Disconnected
[14:51:35] --- jm has left: Disconnected
[14:52:53] --- jis has left
[15:06:09] --- brabson has left: Disconnected
[15:13:59] --- dcrocker has left: Disconnected
[15:31:29] --- mark.ellison has joined
[15:34:06] --- mark.ellison has left