Version 8 (modified by suresh.krishnan@…, 7 years ago) (diff)



The 6man working group held a two and a half hour session on the Tuesday of the IETF in London. The session was well attended with over a hundred participants. It was recorded by Meetecho and the audio/video archives are available.

There has been active discussions on the mailing list since the last IETF, with over 800 messages. The main topics of discussion has been "Why /64", SSAS, the recommendation for default interface-identifiers, address privacy and efficient ND. The working group has had 5 RFCs published, and currently have no document in the IESG queue.

The main topics for the London meeting, was the "Why /64" document, that is a document that explains why the /64 boundary was chosen, and also explores the consequences of changing that boundary, if we ever wanted to do that. There was strong support in the room for adopting this document as a working group document. We also had a 45 minute session to talk about efficient ND. Both with regards to battery efficiency, and how ND behaves on link-layers that do not handle multicast well. The chairs have decided to form a design team to work on this problem, anyone interested in participating should contact the chairs. The design team is expected to report back to the working group at the Toronto IETF meeting.

There was also consensus in the the room to adopt the following drafts:

This consensus is being verified on the mailing list.


The DMM WG is about to complete the work on its current charter. The requirements document has already been submitted into the publication process and the second working group document on the current practices & gap analysis is nearing the completing. The next step with the gap analysis is the WGLC, which will be called after the IETF#89 week. The outcome of the gap analysis has pinpointed potential topics and areas of future work.

The WG aims to recharter before the IETF#90. There has been vivid offline discussion already on the possible work items and the revision of the charter text. The future distributed IP mobility management deployments are going to look rather different than what tradition IETF IP mobility protocols have been designed for. The DMM WG is not going to restrict itself only to existing IETF IP mobility protocols tweaking.

The WG spent around an hour of the f2f meeting time discussing the rechartering and identified areas to work on. The very draft charter text can be found: During the WG meeting few new topics were raised: linkage to other IETF WGs who do related work to some extent (not with mobility as the focus) like I2RS, SFC, LISP, FORCES and possibly VNFPool. The linkage to existing architectures was emphasised. If DMM WG wants to work on something that is deployable on e.g. 3GPP networks that should be documented how. Last, the current trend of network function virtualisation was brought up, and DMM should reflect that in its work.


The intarea working group met in a short one hour slot. The draft describing the use of the IPv6 Flow Label for Load Balancing in Server Farms was published as RFC7098. Internet Area Director Brian Haberman announced the formation of the INT directorate to assist the INT area directors in document reviews.

The draft describing a fragmentation strategy for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) was presented. The intent of the document was to provide guidance to future implementers. The content of the draft was well received by the working group, but there were differing opinions as to whether this work would continue to be a point solution or be folded into some form of generic work on tunnels. This will be discussed on the list.

The draft describing issues with IP links in spontaneous wireless networks was presented. The goal of the draft was to raise wider awareness to some issues that need to be handled by IP on ad-hoc wireless networks. There was some resistance to this draft as some people involved in earlier work in the autoconf working group believed that the scope of the problem is much larger than envisioned by this document. The chairs have requested them to have offline discussions with the draft authors and get back to the wg with a way forward.

There was a presentation concerning the potential effects of the NFV initiative and the associated data plane acceleration technologies on IETF protocols. The draft authors are looking for feedback from the Internet Area community. Please send comments to the authors. There was also a presentation about the Asynchronous DNS API by the folks involved in an open source implementation of the same. Their goal was to solicit comments and contributions from DNS folks in the Internet area. The draft concerning use of CGAs for Transaction signatures was updated based on comments received from the working group. The draft will be discussed further on the list.


L2TPEXT did not meet in London for IETF89.

The WG has a draft being currently polled for adoption, "Keyed IPv6 Tunnel" (draft-mkonstan-l2tpext-keyed-ipv6-tunnel).

There are no concerns in L2TPEXT.


The PCP WG met at IETF 89. The DHCP option spec was submitted to the IESG just before the meeting, and progress was made on several other documents. The next rev of pcp-port-set should be ready to submit to the IESG, allowing an app to request a range of ports (e.g., for RTP). The PCP proxy spec and authentication specs are making good progress; the WG discussed open issues and determined next steps. The WG also agreed to start work on updates to the base PCP spec, collecting the deltas on which the WG already has consensus.


The HIP WG is chartered to finish an old Experimental RFC-to-be and to revise the main HIP specs, which are also Experimental, into Proposed Standards. The old Experimental RFC-to-be, the RELOAD instance spec, has already been published as RFC 7086.

The WG also has a few "bis" drafts. They revise the old Experimental HIP specs. Additionally, there are a couple of drafts that are spin offs of those specs: the NAT traversal mechanism and the multihoming part of the mobility and multihoming spec. We decided to document these in separate specs for clarity.

We intend to request their publication in batches so that reviewers have the necessary context when performing their reviews. We will be requesting the publication of the first batch, which includes RFC 4843bis, RFC 5201bis, and RFC 5202bis, shortly.


The TRILL WG met Friday mid-day in the last meeting slot. After a review of status, Sue Hares presented a survey to gather information for the TRILL implementation report called for in the Charter and for which Sue has agreed to be editor.

There was a brief status and update presentation on TRILL OAM and a supplementary presentation on the Liaison the IETF received yesterday informing us the IEEE 802.1 WG has allocated blocks of CFM code points to the IETF. TRILL OAM uses these. WG Last Calls were started on draft-ietf-trill-oam-fm and draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay running through 24 March.

The next topic taken up was Active-Active. Draft-yizhou-trill-active-active-connection-prob, an Informational survey of the problems involved with TRILL active-actve connection at the edge, has been in call for WG adoption ending at this meeting with favorable comments on the mailing list. There were no negative comments from the meeting so the Chairs declared it adopted. Draft-hao-trill-analysis-active-active was then presented and there was a significant amount of discussion. This is an informational draft describing solutions to problems. Meeting comments indicate that another pass should be made on this document before calling for WG adoption.

Draft-zhang-trill-aa-multi-attach was presented and briefly discussed. While the material presented was good and coming along well, it raise enough questions that more discussion is needed.

Draft-mrw-trill-over-ip (which has been adopted as a WG draft although the WG filename version has not been uploaded yet) was then briefly presented and discussed with particular attention to the areas of the draft that may need more work. One question was whether UDP encapsulation or some custom encapsulation should be used. There was a strong consensus for UDP in the room, which will be confirmed on the list.

Finally, the status of the Directory Assisted Edge drafts was presented verbally but there was insufficient time to go into or discuss them.


6lo WG session was held on March 5th (Wednesday) in the 15:20 - 17:30 slot in the afternoon. The Agenda was full with several drafts and presentations. Four adopted WG drafts were presented at the meeting out of which the BTLE document is in IESG review phase and it is waiting for BTLE sig to comment on the IETF draft before moving further. draft-ietf-6lo-lowpanz passed the WGLC call and received more comments due to change in privacy address in 6man. draft-ietf-6lo-lowpan-mib WG comments were discussed at the meeting about providing interface specific MIB capability and the f2f WG meeting rough consensus was to include an optional interface-specific MIB in the document. Draft-ietf-6lo-ghc has been presented and discussed as well. The presented adopted WG documents are:

Waiting to be submitted: draft-ietf-6lo-lobac

draft-mariager-6lo-v6over-dect-ule was scheduled but not presented due to absence of the presenter.

Two new drafts were presented at the meeting:

An interesting presentation ( on link-layer privacy from IAB STRINT workshop has been presented as well . 6TiSCH plugfest announcement and 6lo/6TiSCH possible collaboration area based on 6lowpan-nd are presented by the 6TiSCH co-chairs. 6lo co-chairs discussed possible interest in 6lo deployment usecase scenarios that require more work in the working group and develop a reference architecture related to other constrained node area network components.


The WG reviewed and discussed the individual requirements in the draft-ietf-dnssd-requirements-01. The meeting participants accepted, in principle, the list of requirements. The authors will publish a revision of the draft that will include several specific changes as agreed to in the meeting. The chairs will then pos a WG last call to the mailing list for consensus on forwarding the document to the IESG.

Dave Thaler lead a discussion of what the WG needs to standardize to meet the WG charter and requirements document. Item 2, "Service discovery zone enumeration", was determined to need additional refinement, as the term "zone" is overloaded in the DNS and has an implication of "buckets" that may not be compatible with some desired methods of visibility control such as role-based. Item 5, "interop with other SD protocols", was recognized as out of scope for the current charter but is likely to be of interest for consideration in the future. The discussion of what needs to be standardized was followed by brief summaries and evaluation of standardization for three specific technologies. The conclusions of these three presentations will be consolidated with the list provided by Dave Thaler.

Andrew Sullivan reviewed the main points and conclusions in draft-sullivan-dnssd-mdns-dns-interop-00. There is still some skepticism that any solution can be devised that will successfully address interoperability between DNS-SD/mDNS and the global unicast DNS. However, the WG was reminded to keep in mind that it is chartered to document issues in naming interoperability and solutions are currently beyond the scope of the charter. The chairs asked if Stuart Cheshire would join Andrew Sullivan as a co-author of this document.


Sunset4 discussed moving its first charter item (gap analysis) to last call, and hope to proceed soon with that, strong consensus in the room to proceed. There was a remote presenter discussing the consolidation of multiple NAT port mapping drafts into one draft to meet the charter milestone for that item, we expect a new revision of that draft will incorporate all of the drafts together and then we can review and call for WG adoption. Lastly, we discussed draft-george-ipv6-support, which is a non-WG draft requiring IETF work to explicitly support IPv6-only operation, recommending that IETF reduce focus on back-porting features into IPv4, and recommending that IETF revisit a previous audit of past RFCs to have a comprehensive gap analysis for IPv6-only operation in existing protocols. TThere was a strong consensus in the room to accept this item as a new charter item for Sunset4. The chairs will send the request to the AD.


DHC WG met on Monday morning. The session was attended by 60 people and lasted 2 hours and 32 minutes. We had one RFC (7083, Modification of default values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT), one I-D is in review queue, 4 I-Ds sent to AD and/or IESG. Chairs were concerned that WGLCs receive not enough reviews, just handful of +1s. The decision was to not start WGLC until there is enough review volunteers.

Update about DHCPv6Bis work was presented (good progress, but it essentially just started).

The second presentation was about DHCPv6 Failover. The failover-design draft reached AD review, but was essentially rejected. Authors and AD decided to split it into trimmed down failover-design (info) and failover-spec (std).

Work on Selecting DHCP configuration based on network topology was resumed after a short hiatus. One more rev is needed. There were 6 volunteers for review, so we'll go ahead with WGLC.

Author of Secure DHCPv6 with public key work believes it is ready. 6 volunteers signed up for review, so chairs will go ahead with WGLC soon.

DHCPv6 Load Balancing work has been resume after spending more than a year in limbo. There was WGLC over a year ago, but there were several comments, so updated rev was published on Monday. We have 4 volunteers for review. That's less than chairs would like to have, but since this draft has been around for a long time and is very similar to its v4-counterpart, it is enough and we'll go with another WGLC.

Stateful issues draft has been presented. This draft fixes several important snags in stateful DHCPv6. Since those changes would affect everyone, chairs felt that the bar is set higher than for average draft. There was very few reviews and only a handful +1s during WGLC, so chairs decided to fail it. This appear to made an impact. 8 people promised to do the review. That should be more than enough to pass a new WGLC once chairs announce one.

Stateless reconfiguration (individual) was presented. There are some improvements since last meeting, but it is still not clear whether the WG is willing to work on it. The work will continue as individual for now.

Customer Edge Router ID option was presented. It's a proposal that overlaps Homenet, HIPNET and generic CPE deployment. The draft has some DHCP issues (tries to do auth by itself, rather than using standard auth option or reusing secure-dhcpv6 being developed). The AD will follow up to determine the best place for this work to proceed.

Homenet Naming DHCP Options draft was presented. It is intended for Homenet WG, so it was presneted in DHC as info only. Several DHCP-specific comments were provided.

A new draft about dynamic Allocation of shared IPv4 address has been presented. This is DHC-specific part of the solution. It is expected to be reused by other solutions being developed in Softwires. The room was inclined to adopt that work. Will do adoption call on the mailing list soon.

DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 source address option is an extension to the DHCPv4-over-DHCPV6 solution that is sent to IESG. This is a very fresh proposal, there was not enough time for thorough discussion and no dicussion on ML, so this topic will be discussed further.

The last 4 minutes presentation was delivered by Tsinghua University, which implemented DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 server and client. It is a nice data point for the draft that is awaiting IESG review now.