Call for nominations for co-chair position ipv6 working group 20100202
I would like to invite everybody who is interested him/herself, or would like to propose somebody else for the position of co-chair of the ipv6 working group. Nominations should be received by me or on the list by close of business in a time zone of your choice by Feb 2, 2010. I already received two nominations for Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> and Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>. The procedure that we plan to use to select our co-chairs is outlined in: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/ipv6-wg/2010/msg00028.html As mentioned in the above mail, the exact selection procedure is still a proposal and subject to change. David Kessens ---
Hi, Thus wrote David Kessens (david.kessens@nsn.com):
I already received two nominations for Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> and Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>.
Could the nominees (current and future) please write a few words about themselves and what they expect they will be doing as WG co-chairs? regards, spz -- spz@serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
S.P., On 2010-01-23 01:04, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
Thus wrote David Kessens (david.kessens@nsn.com):
I already received two nominations for Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> and Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>.
Could the nominees (current and future) please write a few words about themselves and what they expect they will be doing as WG co-chairs?
Sure, why not? :) Apologies for the long e-mail - it's Saturday and I'm feeling chatty. I've been involved with the RIR community since 1998 or so when I started working at ARIN. I also joined the IETF at that time. After a couple years I got a job at the RIPE NCC, where I participated in the RIPE community as a staff member. Since I left the RIPE NCC a few years ago, I have been able to participate in RIPE activities with a lot more freedom, since my employers in this time have had little reason to be concerned that my crazy ideas would be confused with their own. I confess that I was an IPv6 skeptic for a long time, because of technical concerns with the protocol. Lets be honest - it's over-engineered in a lot of ways, difficult administratively, lacks a decent co-existence/transition design, and fails to address some of the major problems facing the Internet. But over the past decade I have come to realize that there is no alternative path forward for the Internet. We *need* to move as much of the Internet to IPv6 as possible, as quickly as possible, or the future Internet will be worse in many ways than the current Internet. So now I'm an IPv6 advocate. USE IT! NOW!!! --- As for my actual IPv6 qualifications - I confess I don't have many. I know the core protocols, but I was trained as a software engineer and work now as the programme manager for BIND 10, not as a network engineer or for a network hardware vendor. I think the role of a working group chair is more about communications and organization than about technology. And I think what is really needed right now is motivation. RIPE is a unique community that is being wasted right now, at least as far as IPv6 adoption. --- How do I plan on fixing this? I'd like the working group to have some actual output. For example, there are a ton of IPv6 projects and efforts, both within the RIPE region and without. Ideally a list of all of these could be collected and maintained. Likewise, recommendations about technologies or products can be collected and maintained. I think there are a lot of people trying to push IPv6, but the work seems disconnected, and I hope that RIPE can act to connect these efforts. I'd also like to have more frequent information reach the mailing list about IPv6 developments. There is more discussion about IPv6 developments on on Slashdot than the RIPE IPv6 working group! We don't need daily IPv6 updates - this is a working group, not a news source - but even under the old charter the group was supposed to be getting information about IPv6 developments. I want to see some of the people acting in ways that may affect future IPv6 development invited to discuss their ideas with the community. For example, just this week BT announced an IPv6 patent on an IP address management technique (which I discovered from the IPv6 Act Now feed). Is this a good thing, a bad thing? Is it going to change investment or rollout plans? What does their competition think? The best thing is probably just to bring them to the mailing list and ask them. :) There are a ton of other possibilities too. I'm quite happy to listen to people's suggestions and help them bring them to the community and make them happen. It's not about me doing stuff - it's about helping the working group doing what it really wants to be doing anyway. --- None of this requires me as chair. I won't be upset or go away if the working group decides they'd rather have David and Marco work on this stuff together, or the group would rather have someone completely different. But I would be quite honored if given the chance to serve as co-chair. Thanks, -- Shane
On 23 jan 2010, at 01:04, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
Hi,
Thus wrote David Kessens (david.kessens@nsn.com):
I already received two nominations for Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> and Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>.
Could the nominees (current and future) please write a few words about themselves and what they expect they will be doing as WG co-chairs?
Sure, I've been involved in the RIR/ISP community since 1999, working as a network engineer for several Dutch service providers, since of all them can be considered smaller companies, most of these jobs have been a mix between hands-on operational work as well as more theoretical tasks such as capacity management, network design and introducing new technologies (such as ADSL and VOIP) in the market. As far as RIR work goes, I've been running registries since 1999 including various audits and mergers. Earlier RIPE community work includes taking part in the introduction of the abuse-mailbox attribute to the ripe database. I've been testing, experimenting and working with IPv6 for a very long time, starting of with a couple of 6Bone connections, later followed by provider TLA and connections at AMS-IX with mostly tunnels towards the end sites, with an occasional native connection where possible. For about 2 years I've been spending quite some time on introducing IPv6 in our access network, which consist of approx 300.000 DSL lines, where especially the search for an affordable consumer grade CPE took and still is taking a lot of time and effort. During this work I found technology is not the biggest hurdle, everything or at least 99% of the protocols and technology you need to deploy IPv6 towards a large residential install base is there, it's more about convincing management, suppliers and customers they have to take action and the problem of the IPv4 run out is closer and bigger as it might seem at first glance. I also found that coorperation and openess is a large part of the solution, especially towards hard- and software vendors you can gain a lot by working together instead of trying to reinvent the wheel on your own. The IPv4 runout has been a theoretical problem for years, for which IPv6 was the theoretical solution, now that we finally are moving it from our labs in to the real world we will find numerous problems, those can range from easy to solve bugs to more complex issues or even design flaws, we have yet to find out how a large virus outbreak using IPv6 as a transport will look like. What I would like to do as a WG co-chair is to create a platform for people to share those experiences, being able to learn from eachother and work together in finding solutions for the problems we encounter, not only amongst the people taking part in the IPv6 working group but also using experience and knowlegde in other WG's or industry bodies, for example the anti-abuse WG. MarcoH
David, "David Kessens" wrote the followingon 22/01/2010 06:45:
I would like to invite everybody who is interested him/herself, or would like to propose somebody else for the position of co-chair of the ipv6 working group. Nominations should be received by me or on the list by close of business in a time zone of your choice by Feb 2, 2010.
It's possible I'm missing something here, but I can't see an explicit statement of the number of "seats". The implicit suggestion seems to be one, but I think this is worth clarifying, especially as most of the recent discussion seems to favour appointing both Marco and Shane as co-chairs. I accept that I'm biased here as I'm in favour of this solution, but I have yet to see a) anyone speak out against this result or b) any other candidates mentioned. a) is the more important point for me at this juncture. Thanks, Brian.
Brian, On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:36:28AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
It's possible I'm missing something here, but I can't see an explicit statement of the number of "seats". The implicit suggestion seems to be one, but I think this is worth clarifying, especially as most of the recent discussion seems to favour appointing both Marco and Shane as co-chairs. I accept that I'm biased here as I'm in favour of this solution, but I have yet to see a) anyone speak out against this result or b) any other candidates mentioned. a) is the more important point for me at this juncture.
This was explicitly left open. I saw some other comments that indicated that some people were interested in selecting more than one co-chair. After we have the full list of volunteers for this role, this determination can be made. However, as you already did, there is nothing that should stop you from giving a preliminary point of view so that people can already think a bit more about this point and it will perhaps help us to come to a quick resolution. David Kessens ---
participants (5)
-
Brian Nisbet -
David Kessens -
Marco Hogewoning -
S.P.Zeidler -
Shane Kerr