[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Draft IPv6 Minutes from Minneapolis IETF



Draft IPv6 Minutes from Minneapolis IETF are attached.  Many thanks to 
Steven Blake and Dave Thaler for taking the minutes.

Corrections to the chairs.

Thanks,
Bob Hinden and Brian Haberman
IPv6 Working Group
Minneapolis IETF
November 11 & 12, 2003

Chairs:

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>

Minutes taken by Steven Blake and Dave Thaler.  Edited by Bob Hinden

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Introduction and Agenda Bashing, Chairs (5 min)
Milestone Review and Document Status, Chairs (10 minutes)
Local Communications Goals, Tony Hain & Fred Templin (15 minutes)
   draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-03.txt
   Goal: discussion of open issues
Tunnel MIB, Dave Thaler (10 minutes)
   draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00.txt
   Goal: overview of proposal, adopt as WG item?
Proxy RA, Dave Thaler (10 minutes)
   draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01.txt
   Goal: status update, adopt as WG item?
ICMPv6 Updates, Bob Hinden (10 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-02.txt
   Goal: status update

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Router Selection, Dave Thaler (10 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt
   Goal: issue discussion, next steps
Neighbor Discovery Updates, Tatuya  Jinmei (15 minutes)
   draft-soliman-ipv6-2461-bis-00.txt
   Goal: issue discussion
Stateless Autoconfiguration Updates, Tatuya Jinmei (15 minutes)
   draft-jinmei-ipv6-rfc2462bis-00.txt
   Goal: issue discussion
Scoped Address Arch Document, Tatuya  Jinmei (10 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt
   Goal: discussion of last call comments
Site-Local Deprecation Document, Christian Huitema (20 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt
   Goal: discussion of last call comments
Unique Local Addresses Document, Bob Hinden (15 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt
   Goal: discussion of last call comments
Address Architecture Update, Bob Hinden (15 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt
   Goal: review changes and plan for moving forward
Identifier/Locator Separation, Kurt Lindqvist (10 minutes)
   
-----------------------------------------------
Introduction and Agenda Bashing, Chairs (5 min)
-----------------------------------------------

The Brian Haberman introduced the meeting and reviewed the agenda. 

Elizabeth Rodriquez (IMSS chair) announced that the IPv6 over
FiberChannel draft is in last call in IMSS working group.

TAHI Announcement: see slides
  Testing Event
  - Jan 19-23, 2003
  - Japan
  - New test suite (IPv6 & SIP)
  - See http://www.tahi.org for more information

---------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Review and Document Status, Chairs (10 minutes)
---------------------------------------------------------

MILESTONES (previous dates in parenthesis)
  Done            Submit Prefix Delegation requirements and submit to
                  IESG for Informational. 
  Done            Submit TCP MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard.
  Done            Submit IPv6 Node Requirements to IESG for
                  Informational. 
  Done            Submit Forwarding Table MIB to IESG for Proposed
                  Standard. 
  Done            Submit IP MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard.
  Nov 03          Submit Site-Local Deprecation document to IESG for
                  Informational   
  Nov 03          Submit Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses to IESG for
                  Proposed Standard.  
  Dec 03 (Nov 03) Submit update to ICMPv6 (RFC2463) to be republished at
                  Draft Standard. 
  Dec 03 (Nov 03) Submit Router Preferences, More-Specific Routes, and
                  Load Sharing to IESG for Proposed Standard. 
  Feb 04 (Dec 03) Submit updates to Auto Configuration (RFC2462) and
                  Neighbor Discovery (RFC2461) to be republished at Draft
                  Standard.   
  Dec 03          Submit Proxy RA to IESG for Proposed Standard 
  Dec 03 (Oct 03) Submit Link Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses to IESG for
                  Proposed Standard. 
  Dec 03 (Oct 03) Submit IPv6 Scoped Addressing Architecture to IESG for
                  Proposed Standard. 
  Dec  03         Submit update to IPv6 over PPP (RFC2472) to IESG for
                  Draft Standard. 
  Jan 04 (Oct 03) Submit UDP MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard.
  Jan 04 (Nov 03) Submit Requirements for Local Addressing to IESG for
                  Informational 
  Jan 04 (Nov 03) Submit Update to Privacy Extensions for Stateless
                  Autoconfiguration document (RFC3041) to the IESG for
                  Draft Standard.  
  Jan 04 (Oct 03) Resubmit Node Information Queries to IESG for Proposed
                  Standard. 
  Jan 04 (Nov 03) Re-charter or close working group.

PUBLISHED & APPROVALS

  RFC's Published
    RFC3587, "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format"

  IESG Approved
    none

STATUS OF CURRENT WORK ITEMS

Flow Label
 - Editor: Jarno Rajahalme
 - Milestone: Done
    o Submit for PS
 - Status: 
    o In IESG
    o New draft submitted to resolve IESG comments
 - Open Issues:
    o None known

Proxy RA
 - Editor:  Dave Thaler 
 - Milestones:  Dec 03
    o Submit to IESG for PS
 - Status: New draft
    o To be discussed in WG

Prefix Delegation Requirements
 - Editor:  Shin Miyakawa
 - Milestone:  Done
    o Submit for Info
 - Status: In IESG
    o New draft submitted that responds to IESG comments
 - Open Issues:
    o None known

TCP MIB 
 - Editor: Rajiv Raghunarayan
 - Milestone: Done
    o Submit for PS
 - Status: Submitted to IESG
 - Open Issues:
    o None known

IPv6 Node Requirements
 - Editor: John Loughney
 - Milestone: Done
    o Submit for Info
 - Status: In IESG
    o New Draft submitted that responds to AD comments
 - Open Issues:
    o None known

Forwarding Table MIB
 - Editor: Brian Haberman
 - Milestone: Done
    o Submit for PS
 - Status: In IESG
 - Open Issues:
    o None known

Node Information Queries
 - Editor: Matt Crawford
 - Milestone: Oct 03
    o Re-submit for PS
    o Update milestone to Jan 04
 - Status: New draft in w.g. last call
    o New draft need to resolve issues raised on mailing list and at
      Vienna IETF 
 - Open Issues:

UDP MIB
 - Editor: John Flick
 - Milestone: Oct 03
    o Submit for PS
    o Update milestone to Jan 04
 - Status: New draft available
 - Open Issues:
    o none known
    o Ready for w.g. last call?

IP MIB
 - Editor:  Shawn Routhier
 - Milestone: Done
    o Submit for PS
 - Status: In IESG
 - Open Issues: 
    o Will be delayed by INET Address TC
    o Dependent on Router Selection Draft

Default Router Preferences
 - Editor: Dave Thaler
 - Milestone: Nov 03
    o Submit to IESG for PS
    o Update milestone to Dec 03
 - Status: AD Comments Received
 - Open Issues:
    o Split load balancing into separate document and resolve issues 
    o To be discussed in w.g.

Link-Scoped Multicast
 - Editor: Jung-Soo Park
 - Milestone: Oct 03
    o Submit for PS
    o Update milestone to Dec 03
 - Status: WG Last Call
 - Open Issues:
    o No technical issues, but is it needed?
    o OK to advance?

Comment: We don't need link-scoped multicast; changes SSM semantics.

ACTION: Chairs need to post query to mailing list to determine working
group consensus on how to move forward with the Link-Scoped Multicast
draft.

Scoped Addressing Architecture
 - Editor: Jinmei Tatuya
 - Milestone: Oct 03
    o Submit for PS
    o Update milestone to Dec 03
 - Status: Working Group Last Call
 - Open Issues:
    o Need to be consistent with INET Address TC on default zone values
    o OK to advance (after new draft)?

Savola: Scoped Architecture cannot go forward until ICMPv6 is updated.

Site-Local Deprecation
 - Editors: Christian Huitema, Brian Carpenter
 - Milestone: Nov 03
    o Submit for Informational
 - Status: In working group last call
 - Open Issues:
    o Issues raised on mailing list
    o To be discussed in w.g. meeting

Unique Local Addresses
 - Editor: Bob Hinden
 - Milestone: Nov 03
    o Submit for PS
 - Status: In working group last call
 - Open Issues:
    o Issues raised on mailing list
    o To be discussed in w.g. meeting

Requirements for Local Addressing
 - Editor: T. Hain, F. Templin
 - Milestone: Nov 03
    o Submit for Informational
    o Update milestone to Jan 04
 - Status: Individual submission
 - Open Issues:
    o Discussion on mailing list
    o Will be discussed in w.g. meeting

IPv6 Addressing Architecture
 - Editor: Bob Hinden
 - Milestone: (none)
    o Re-Submit for Draft Standard
    o New milestone Jan 04
 - Status: Draft available
 - Open Issues:
    o Dependent on Site-Local deprecation
    o Will be discussed in w.g. meeting

Work Not Started
 - ICMPv6 Update
 - Privacy Extensions Update
 - PPPv6 Update

Textual Representation of IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses
 - Author: Andrew Main
    o <draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-01.txt>
 - Fixes a long history of broken ABNF definitions of textual
   representations 
    o Does not cover scoped address syntax or prefix length syntax 
 - Important to get this right, to ensure correct parsing by UIs, etc.
 - Request:
    o Please read it & prepare for decision whether to adopt as WG item 
    o Standards track vs Informational?

Textual representation: ABNF already moved out of the Address
Architecture specification some time ago.

Jinmei: Textual representation has a relationship to address
architecture.  Hinden: No; this is dependent on address architecture, not
the other way around.

Carpenter: Talked to co-author (Zephram); ABNF definitions have been
broken for awhile (including IPv4 dotted quad).

ACTION:  Chairs to send out note if anyone implements an ABNF parser.

---------------------------------------------------------
Local Communications Goals, Tony Hain & Fred Templin (15 minutes)
   draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-03.txt
   Goal: discussion of open issues
---------------------------------------------------------

Hain : People want to tell other people how to run their networks.  Not
IETF business. Keith Moore: IP tells people how to run their networks.
People who misuse IP can cause harm.

Fred Templin gave remainder of presentation. 

---------------------------------------------------------
Tunnel MIB, Dave Thaler (10 minutes)
   draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00.txt
   Goal: overview of proposal, adopt as WG item?
---------------------------------------------------------

Savola: have you thought about what kind of IANA registry you want to
have?  Dave: rules should be identical to what you need to do to get an
iftype value (treat iftype the same as tunneltype).

Haberman: Should ipv6 adopt this document?  Chairs call the question.  No
objection to making this a working group item.

ACTION:  Next version of <draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00.txt> will be an
         IPv6 working group document.

---------------------------------------------------------
Proxy RA, Dave Thaler (10 minutes)
   draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01.txt
   Goal: status update, adopt as WG item?
---------------------------------------------------------

Dave Thaler gave presentation.

Itojun: You propose to add MTU option, what is the relationship with
this modification and IPsec or SEND?  Dave: If there are any security
parts of the RA, they are stripped (unsecured RA), or we ignore it.  It
looks like a router that doesn't implement SEND to hosts.

Dave tends to agree with Brian Carpenter that this should become
Informational, not PS.  Any opinions?

Droms: Any interoperability issues?  Or does this merely define how a
device would implement this function.  Dave: mainly the router.  Trying
to show that you can do this without NAT.

Huitema: what about spanning tree?  Dave: Optional; don't always need
loop prevention.

Dudley: Important to default (Spanning Tree) to on.  For those links that
have the requirements, should it be used as default.  Dave: Yes.

Haberman: Any objection to adopting this document as a w.g. document for
the ND proxy work item, as informational.  No objections.

Adopt as a working group document?  For Informational.  No objections. 

ACTION:  Next version of <draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01.txt> will be an
         IPv6 working group document. 

---------------------------------------------------------
ICMPv6 Updates, Bob Hinden (10 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-02.txt
   Goal: status update
---------------------------------------------------------

Savola: Should we redo the w.g. last-call?  Hinden: Yes, when new draft is
out.  Also, do we have to redo the implementation reports?  Hinden: Need to
look at that and check with the ADs.

Chown: Extra ICMPv6 type: Site Exit Routers suggested in multi6.  Should
we add that in this document?  Hinden: Not sure we should do it now; it can
use experimental types.

Haberman: Same issue with MLDv2 spec.  Could have requested a code from
IANA without any IETF action.  Multi6 could go request a type on their
own (at least until we change the IANA policy in this document).

Question: Who is the editor.  Hinden: Currently I am, and we are working for
new editor.  If interested, please contact the chairs.

----------------------------
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
----------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------
Router Selection, Dave Thaler (10 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt
   Goal: issue discussion, next steps
---------------------------------------------------------

Savola: Don't use uppercase "may" in last guideline on slide 5.  Thinks
it is a misuse of terminology.  Narten: Recommendations for operators or
implementors.  A: Operators.  First three will be lower case, last will
be upper case.


---------------------------------------------------------
Neighbor Discovery Updates, Tatuya  Jinmei (15 minutes)
   draft-soliman-ipv6-2461-bis-00.txt
   Goal: issue discussion
---------------------------------------------------------

security/mobility issues raised
bug fixes, increase clarity
goal is another Draft Standard RFC
    restrictions on new functionality

Updates to RFC 2461 (Hesham primary editor)
1) mixed host/router behavior (on diff interfaces)
   Proposal: state distinction is per interface

Templin: can you have a router with 1 interface?  A: Yes

2) what if pref life > valid life?
    Proposal: MUST NOT send

3) onlink assumption considered harmful
    Proposal: remove this assumption

4) router lifetime values "inconsistencies".  Does >18.2 hours violate
   spec? 
   Proposal: allow any value up to 65535, don't change sending behavior
   in section 6  

5) clarify M/O flags in context of DHCPv6
   Proposal: say stateful for M is RFC 3315
      need similar reference for O

Greg Daley: dependency issues, O reference is just a draft

6) what happens if host receives prefix length > 64
   Proposal: ignore and assume a 64-bit prefix?
   to be discussed on list

15) do we have to mandate link-local addresses as source in redirects?
    Proposal: yes, no change

7-9 are security issues
    Proposal: add a section on securing ND and refer to SEND for dynamic
    security 
       expand security considerations section based on send-psreq draft  
       add discussion on manual vs dynamic keying, currently vague

13) omission of prefix options considered harmful
    Proposal: handle with ND extensions for movement detection not in
    this spec

14) introduce globally unique link id for movement detection
    Proposal: handle with ND extensions not in this spec

10) relax requirements on RA frequency to allow 50ms
    Proposal: allow, but not sure if safe

11) remove random delay in MNs before RS
    Proposal: change 6.3.7 to allow no delay if know a hand-over (not
    startup, etc) has taken place

12) remove random delay in routers before RA 
    Proposal: draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-*

Kempf: issues raised, may not want in this spec

Narten: legitimate for mobility but need to look at as part of the whole
problem useful to talk about in DNA, wary of changing this spec.

Bound: Agree w/ Narten.  Just pull these from the recycle issues and move
forward.  

Narten: put them on hold, don't adopt them at this point may adopt them
later if get resolution when document is still open 

Nordmark: #11 need to explain motivation for delay... power failure case
clarifying intent may help the other discussion.

Kempf: talk to security AD on 7-9

Daley: interested in looking at issues in DNA but not committing

Huitema: don't add anything, have implementation experience with current
draft and want to keep moving forward

Narten: don't make specific changes now

Itojun: limit to clarifications, don't introduce new stuff
    
15) remove delay before NS
    Proposal: discuss

18) add R/H flags per MIPv6 spec
    Proposal: accept

Mobility:  Clarifications now, but not new features.  
Limit effort to clarification..

---------------------------------------------------------
Stateless Autoconfiguration Updates, Tatuya Jinmei (15 minutes)
   draft-jinmei-ipv6-rfc2462bis-00.txt
   Goal: issue discussion
---------------------------------------------------------

Some issues already have consensus on list
others:

6) src addr selection issues: prefer link-local vs deprecated
   Proposal: add reference to RFC 3484

7) deprecated addr handling, semantics of "new" communication
   consensus: incoming TCP connection is not "new"
   Proposal: use text proposed on list
   also talk about case where application specified deprecated address

8) semantics of L=0 A=1 case
   (addr configurable but not on link)
   Proposal: no change

9) stable storage for auto-configured addr for stability
   Proposal: mention it but not mandate

10) issues raised in send "use IPsec" is not enough
    Proposal: add summary to security considerations, no change in protocol

11) DAD for 802.11 
    2462 says don't drop just because Llayer source != receiving node
    802.11 doesn't meet this
    Proposal: add note in Appendix A and reference
    draft-park-ipv6-dad-problem-wlan 

Suggestion was made to have an IPv6-over-WiFi specification.

12) conflict with MLD spec re random delay for first packet
    2462: if NS for DAD is 1st pkt, random delay
    MLD report is usually the first packet
    Proposal: just add a note? not a problem in _this_ spec

Dino: so don't send MLD reports for link-local addresses
Daley: that would break things

13) DAD relayed issues: dad delay, random delay, how optimize dad
    spec: SHOULD do DAD for every unicast addr
          MAY skip DAD in some cases
    should we remove the MAY?
    Proposal: DAD optimization is a separate draft
    need discussion on list

15) semantics of M/O
    what requirement keyword, and specify DHCPv6?
    Proposal: should mention DHCPv6, need to discuss details

16) whether a non-host router can use autoconf
    a) configure a global addr
    b) configure a link-local addr
    c) configure itself about "other" information
    Proposal: a=NO, b=YES, c=NO

Haberman: clarification - you mean per-interface definition right?
Jinmei: yes

17) 'not-yet-ready' status of an autoconf addr for renumbering
    can deprecated addr be used?
    Proposal: out of scope of this update, specify as extension

18) avoiding intf failure on DAD failure
    2462: SHOULD be disabled if no link-loc addr
    Proposal: SHOULD but MAY allow automatic recovery

19) 2462 requires a 64-bit ID
    same issue as 2461
    no suggestion so far   
    Proposal: discuss on list

Itojun: is there an issues list page?
?: #13 what do you mean by "strict"
    Jinmei: force DAD not DID
  #18 MIPv6 suggested 3041 id in this case, should 2462 suggest A mechanism?
Hinden: need to be careful making changes
Huitema: #18 is really a security violation, bad guy can disable
everyone's interfaces. 

Chairs called question of making ND and Addr-Conf w.g. documents.  No
objections .  Next version of drafts will be w.g. documents.

ACTION: Next versions of <draft-soliman-ipv6-2461-bis-00.txt> and
<draft-jinmei-ipv6-rfc2462bis-00.txt> will be IPv6 working group
documents.

---------------------------------------------------------
Scoped Address Arch Document, Tatuya  Jinmei (10 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt
   Goal: discussion of last call comments
---------------------------------------------------------

last call issued Oct.22
most issues have consensus on list

Default zone ID value
    draft suggests but does not require 0
    issue: MIB needs 0
    Proposal: SHOULD use zero

Thaler: why SHOULD and not MUST? (for MIB compliance)
Haberman: just make sure MIB and this doc agree
Itojun: can we get implementation reports and if no one uses non-zero
then can use MUST 

Alignment with draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep
    Proposal: add a reference to the text-rep draft
       normative or informative?

Haberman: make sure reference looks like the ref in the addr arch doc
    (informative)

number of authors > 5

default zone ids for "subnet-local" multicast scope
   Proposal: remove subnet-local, already removed from 3513 and
   addr-arch-v4 

references ICMPv6 update as a normative reference
    shouldn't be a problem (do concurrently)

---------------------------------------------------------
Site-Local Deprecation Document, Christian Huitema (20 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt
   Goal: discussion of last call comments
---------------------------------------------------------

Huitema was called up to discuss, no slides

two main comments 
1 (Pekka etc) more text about why NAT is bad, e.g. from Margaret SL-IMPACT
    Proposal: OK

2 recommendation for deprecation
    current: existing behavior MUST be ignored by any new implementation
    Q: what is a new implementation, is there a flag date, what if shipping
        both old and new versions, etc
    one way: write weasel text
    other way: replace MUST by SHOULD (Huitema prefers this)
        rationale: writing more text doesn't help

Hinden: Thinks current text is just fine.

Carpenter: tends to agree with hinden, IETF doesn't have a clear
procedure for versioning.  No objection to SHOULD but like it with no
changes.  Leave it up to the implementor how to handle

Nordmark: may be helpful to add a sentence to state the intent?
Huitema: we already say that

Hinden consensus summary: Leave deprecation text as is and bring in two
paragraphs from Margaret's document.

Haberman took consensus call: Any objection? No

ACTION:  Chairs will advance
         <draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt> when next version
         of draft is out.  

---------------------------------------------------------
Unique Local Addresses Document, Bob Hinden (15 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt
   Goal: discussion of last call comments
---------------------------------------------------------

Last call started Oct.22
Hinden is active author, Haberman is shepherding chair

Need for ULAs
    need to provide for local disconnected/intermittent allocation
    Proposal: yes, better than other known alternatives

Huitema posted summary to the list of alternatives and problems with them

Application handling?
    do applications need special knowledge about these addresses?
    not introduced by this type of address, also applies to firewalls etc
    useful to investigate general solutions to this class of problems
        impact to source/destination addr selection?
            will longest match rules just work?
        provide more feedback via ICMP errors

Moore: agree don't burden address scheme with this
         need to change address selection to get other things to work
         it's hard enough to get address selection right, will probably
         have to change it anyway

Nordmark: ULAs are different than filtering etc, they're not reachable by
design 

Moore: by design they're not globally reachable, but it's a stretch to say
    they're not reachable by the peers of interest.  Don't want
    applications to assume they're not reachable if not global

Nordmark: wrong impression is dangerous

Moore: hard enough to get right

Itojun: agree with Nordmark

Daley: this is a routing problem, why not just send destination unreachable
Hinden: see later slide, discussed later in the talk.

Leakage
    Doc provides reasonable measures to prevent most leakage
    Uniqueness minimizes impact
    Leakage also affects firewalled addresses, etc
    ULA is a good tradeoff among alternatives

Itojun: different types of filtering (e.g. don't advertise routes,
    do advertise and filter data, etc)

Charging, IANA instructions
    IETF documents can't specify a specific charge or use of revenue
    Proposal: remove 10 Euro and say low cost and intent to prevent
    hoarding 
      Geoff Huston (who raised issue) is okay with the new proposed
      text. 

Filtering
    black holing has bad side effects
    Proposal: MAY respond with ICMP admin prohibit
    
Savola: is MAY strong enough?
Hinden: isn't ICMP always a MAY? should be consistent with other places
Savola: then change to SHOULD
Hinden: OK
Itojun: if we don't advertise then who will send admin prohibited
Thaler: diff subtypes for different filtering methods
Iljitsch van Beijnum: New ICMP message for source not right?
Haberman: scope exceeded does that
Iljitsch: is "scope" global here?
Moore: three cases
    1) trying to send out to global internet
    2) trying to send to a ULA with no route
    3) filtering between two local networks
Carpenter: ICMP is likely to cross admin boundaries which may block ICMP 
    not bad to define but can't rely on them arriving
Moore: can be defined and work most of the time

Alternative random algorithm
    Proposal: make sure others are allowed

Best name
    Proposal: take to list
    Haberman: prefer really cool acronyms :)

Propose to make the changes discussed and advance?

Chown: language says need globally unique, but is probabilistically unique
    should be more clear

Haberman calls for consensus:

Any objection to proposed changes? No?
Submit to IESG with changes? Yes?

Moore: clarification - will revised document redo WG last call?
Haberman: we could have 1 week last call

Itojun: please ask whether we need another last call
Wasserman: yes

Iljitsch: locator/identifier separation work coming, not sure we should 
    standardize something different
Hinden: Not advisable to wait
Narten: Right
Carpenter: sentence used to be there "might be useful for Multihoming too"
    make sure it's out.  Hinden thinks it's already out.
Iljitsch: are they unroutable by design or by lack of a way to do it?
    so clarify.
Hinden: says "not routable with currently technology" or something
Kurt Lindqvist: don't wait
Wasserman: there's no conflict with locator/identifier work

ACTION:  Chairs will start short working last call for
         <draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt> when new draft is
         available.   

---------------------------------------------------------
Address Architecture Update, Bob Hinden (15 minutes)
   draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt
   Goal: review changes and plan for moving forward
---------------------------------------------------------

site-locals removed from special list of prefixes
added text describing SL deprecation
added instructions in IANA considerations to reserve and not reassign
changes dependent on approval of SL Deprecation document

changes due to IAB recommendations
2.5 nodes shouldn't make assumptions about address structure
2.5.1 nodes aren't required to validate that u=1 is unique

---------------------------------------------------------
Identifier/Locator Separation, Kurt Lindqvist (10 minutes)
---------------------------------------------------------

Multi6 WG update

A number of proposal (6 active drafts, more expired) many/most split
identifier (who) and locator (where) semantics and syntax vary for most,
locators are todays IPv6 addresses

impact:
 - We will not turn off ipv6 :-)
 - All proposal will try to have no impact on ULPs
 - Most involve a shim layer between ULPs and IP

considerations:
 - secure mapping of id<->locator
 - goals are in RFC 3582
 - more operational considerations being written
     (current drafts from Nordmark, crocker)

Itojun: SONY LIN6 draft mentions patent pending, so may be IPR issues

----------------------------------------------------------------
Meeting Adjourned
----------------------------------------------------------------