Report from ITU Study Group 20 meeting 3-13 December 2018 in Wuxi, China
Dear colleagues, The meeting of ITU Study Group 20 in Wuxi, China, just finished and I’d like to give you a brief report on the discussions of the work on a draft Recommendation on IPv6 addressing. This meeting was the group's first face-to-face meeting since our discussion of the draft Recommendation at RIPE 77 in May 2018 and the July 2018 draft review deadline. The RIPE community's comments were brought to the meeting as a Liaison Statement. Several other parties also submitted their own Contributions, including the RIPE NCC in its role as an ITU Sector Member. The proposal in our Contribution, with reference to earlier discussions and your review, was to discontinue this particular Work Item. The United States Government and ARIN made Contributions along similar lines, seeking to stop the work developing this particular Recommendation. This position was also supported by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and several sector members. I’d like to highlight that both in their Contribution and interventions, the US expressed their gratitude to the RIPE community for their extensive review and feedback on the draft Recommendation. The main author of the draft submitted a Contribution with their account of our discussions at RIPE 77 and the review process, as well as a joint Contribution with the Beijing University for Post and Telecommunications providing a case study of an IPv6 address plan. Having taken all of these contributions and interventions into consideration, the focus of the meeting discussion was on whether or not the work should continue. Unfortunately, the RIPE community’s feedback was only taken into consideration as a high-level conclusion that the current text does not meet the technical standards expected, and the actual text of the draft was not reviewed or revised during this meeting. Unable to reach consensus, the question of whether the work should continue was deferred upwards to the meeting of the Working Party and finally to the closing plenary. During the closing plenary, the Chairman of Study Group 20 proposed continuing the work for at least one more meeting on the premise that the draft’s main author would come back with a Contribution addressing the concerns raised with the current draft. He emphasised that the work item would be dropped unless there were contributions and agreement to advance the text at the next meeting. The RIPE NCC accepted the Chairman’s proposal as a constructive way forward. We look forward to the contributions at the next meeting with the expectation that they will address the concerns raised during your review. We would like to thank you again for the constructive comments raised during the review process. We would also like thank the Question’s rapporteur, associate rapporteur and the Study Group’s management team for all their time and assistance, and of course all the member states and sector members that participated in this discussion. The next meeting of Study Group 20 is scheduled to take place in mid-April, in Geneva, Switzerland. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
Marco, thank you very much for your work and your summary from ITU SG 20. As I understood, there will be a new version of the draft. I would expect, that there will also be another chance for the RIPE community to comment.
Unfortunately, the RIPE community’s feedback was only taken into consideration as a high-level conclusion that the current text does not meet the technical standards expected [...] How can we make sure, that the comments will not be interpreted by the ITU the same way again?
Dear colleagues,
The meeting of ITU Study Group 20 in Wuxi, China, just finished and I’d like to give you a brief report on the discussions of the work on a draft Recommendation on IPv6 addressing.
This meeting was the group's first face-to-face meeting since our discussion of the draft Recommendation at RIPE 77 in May 2018 and the July 2018 draft review deadline. The RIPE community's comments were brought to the meeting as a Liaison Statement.
Several other parties also submitted their own Contributions, including the RIPE NCC in its role as an ITU Sector Member. The proposal in our Contribution, with reference to earlier discussions and your review, was to discontinue this particular Work Item. The United States Government and ARIN made Contributions along similar lines, seeking to stop the work developing
Regards, Markus __________ ursprüngliche Nachricht __________ Von: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@ripe.net> Datum: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2018, 03:34:25 An: ipv6-wg@ripe.net Kopie: Betr.: [ipv6-wg] Report from ITU Study Group 20 meeting 3-13 December 2018 in Wuxi, China this particular Recommendation. This position was also supported by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and several sector members.
I’d like to highlight that both in their Contribution and interventions, the
US expressed their gratitude to the RIPE community for their extensive review and feedback on the draft Recommendation.
The main author of the draft submitted a Contribution with their account of
our discussions at RIPE 77 and the review process, as well as a joint Contribution with the Beijing University for Post and Telecommunications providing a case study of an IPv6 address plan.
Having taken all of these contributions and interventions into
consideration, the focus of the meeting discussion was on whether or not the work should continue. Unfortunately, the RIPE community’s feedback was only taken into consideration as a high-level conclusion that the current text does not meet the technical standards expected, and the actual text of the draft was not reviewed or revised during this meeting.
Unable to reach consensus, the question of whether the work should continue
was deferred upwards to the meeting of the Working Party and finally to the closing plenary.
During the closing plenary, the Chairman of Study Group 20 proposed
continuing the work for at least one more meeting on the premise that the draft’s main author would come back with a Contribution addressing the concerns raised with the current draft. He emphasised that the work item would be dropped unless there were contributions and agreement to advance the text at the next meeting.
The RIPE NCC accepted the Chairman’s proposal as a constructive way forward.
We look forward to the contributions at the next meeting with the expectation that they will address the concerns raised during your review.
We would like to thank you again for the constructive comments raised during
the review process. We would also like thank the Question’s rapporteur, associate rapporteur and the Study Group’s management team for all their time and assistance, and of course all the member states and sector members that participated in this discussion.
The next meeting of Study Group 20 is scheduled to take place in mid-April,
in Geneva, Switzerland.
Regards,
Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
-- Markus de Brün Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI) Federal Office for Information Security, Germany Mail: markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de
On 14 Dec 2018, at 07:23, de Brün, Markus <markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> wrote:
As I understood, there will be a new version of the draft.
That depends on the original author. He has not updated Y.IPv6RefModel, the ITU draft document, for two years and so far has not taken account of *any* of the feedback from the WG. I will be very surprised if that situation changes. Addressing the comments from the WG would pretty much mean throwing away the current draft and starting all over again from scratch.
I would expect, that there will also be another chance for the RIPE community to comment.
If there is a revised document, then yes - that should come back to RIPE for further analysis and comment by the WG. However that would just prolong the agony. It would mean even longer spells at SG20 for representatives from the RIRs. The ideal outcome will be for SG20 to kill this work item at its next meeting in April. IMO Y.IPv6RefModel is beyond saving. It now needs two shots to the head -- just to make sure -- and a quiet burial. The next SG20 meeting is in Geneva. Near to Dignitas. :-)
Unfortunately, the RIPE community’s feedback was only taken into consideration as a high-level conclusion that the current text does not meet the technical standards expected [...] How can we make sure, that the comments will not be interpreted by the ITU the same way again?
I think something's been lost in translation. SG20 accepted the RIPE community's comments that Y.IPv6RefModel was fundamentally flawed. Nobody disputed that. I would hope we want to get the same result if/when the WG responds to an updated version of that document. SG20 did not accept the proposals from RIPE NCC, ARIN and the US government -- backed by UK, Germany and Canada -- that work on Y.IPv6RefModel should stop. But they came very close to doing that. It was a meta-discussion on proceduals matters that detailed things, not the content of the "kill Y.IPv6RefModel" proposals.
On 14 Dec 2018, at 10:58, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
SG20 did not accept the proposals from RIPE NCC, ARIN and the US government -- backed by UK, Germany and Canada -- that work on Y.IPv6RefModel should stop. But they came very close to doing that. It was a meta-discussion on proceduals matters that detailed things, not the content of the "kill Y.IPv6RefModel" proposals.
Ugh! That last sentence should have been:
It was a meta-discussion on procedural matters that derailed things, not the content of the "kill Y.IPv6RefModel" proposals.
I'm sure you all realised that anyway.
Jim Reid wrote on 14/12/2018 10:58:
On 14 Dec 2018, at 07:23, de Brün, Markus <markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> wrote:
As I understood, there will be a new version of the draft.
That depends on the original author. He has not updated Y.IPv6RefModel, the ITU draft document, for two years and so far has not taken account of *any* of the feedback from the WG. I will be very surprised if that situation changes. Addressing the comments from the WG would pretty much mean throwing away the current draft and starting all over again from scratch.
More to the point, the work on Y.IPv6RefModel should stop because the subject matter is out of scope for the ITU. Nick
On 14 Dec 2018, at 11:41, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
More to the point, the work on Y.IPv6RefModel should stop because the subject matter is out of scope for the ITU.
That point was made in Wuxi but it fell on deaf ears, just like it did at previous meetings. I fear the only way Y.IPv6RefModel will die at SG20 is when the author admits it's dead.
Thanks for the clarification. __________ ursprüngliche Nachricht __________ Von: Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> Datum: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2018, 11:58:46 An: "de Brün, Markus" <markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de> Kopie: RIPE IPv6 WG <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Betr.: Re: [ipv6-wg] Report from ITU Study Group 20 meeting 3-13 December 2018 in Wuxi, China
On 14 Dec 2018, at 07:23, de Brün, Markus <markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de>
As I understood, there will be a new version of the draft.
That depends on the original author. He has not updated Y.IPv6RefModel, the ITU draft document, for two years and so far has not taken account of *any* of the feedback from the WG. I will be very surprised if that situation changes. Addressing the comments from the WG would pretty much mean throwing away the current draft and starting all over again from scratch.
I would expect, that there will also be another chance for the RIPE community to comment.
If there is a revised document, then yes - that should come back to RIPE for further analysis and comment by the WG. However that would just prolong the agony. It would mean even longer spells at SG20 for representatives from the RIRs. The ideal outcome will be for SG20 to kill this work item at its next meeting in April.
IMO Y.IPv6RefModel is beyond saving. It now needs two shots to the head -- just to make sure -- and a quiet burial.
The next SG20 meeting is in Geneva. Near to Dignitas. :-)
Unfortunately, the RIPE community’s feedback was only taken into consideration as a high-level conclusion that the current text does not meet the technical standards expected [...] How can we make sure, that the comments will not be interpreted by the ITU
wrote: the
same way again?
I think something's been lost in translation. SG20 accepted the RIPE community's comments that Y.IPv6RefModel was fundamentally flawed. Nobody disputed that. I would hope we want to get the same result if/when the WG responds to an updated version of that document.
SG20 did not accept the proposals from RIPE NCC, ARIN and the US government -- backed by UK, Germany and Canada -- that work on Y.IPv6RefModel should stop. But they came very close to doing that. It was a meta-discussion on proceduals matters that detailed things, not the content of the "kill Y.IPv6RefModel" proposals.
-- Markus de Brün Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI) Federal Office for Information Security, Germany Mail: markus.debruen@bsi.bund.de
On 14/12/2018 03:34, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The meeting of ITU Study Group 20 in Wuxi, China, just finished and I’d like to give you a brief report on the discussions of the work on a draft Recommendation on IPv6 addressing.
Marco, Thnx for excellent work done there :) I hope that this madness ends as soon as possible and that no new ideas like this blooms again. Ever ;) Cheers, Jan
participants (5)
-
de Brün, Markus -
Jan Zorz - Go6 -
Jim Reid -
Marco Hogewoning -
Nick Hilliard