Nick, I just sent a mail to the ipv6 wg list with some comments on this summary. I am going to cause some duplication with that other mail, but I believe it is important to keep the record straight. Please follow up on the ipv6 wg mailing list only to avoid further duplication. On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:09:07PM +0200, Nick Hyrka wrote:
IPV6 WORKING GROUP
- It was decided that the RIPE Whois Database will continue to include more services that run in native IPv6.
We did not make such a decision. We as the working group have no authority to tell the RIPE NCC what to do or not to do. At best we can recommend to the RIPE NCC to take a certain approach and this approach will in general be followed if there is no/little funding required, or otherwise, *if* the RIPE NCC membership agrees on funding such work. We discussed the issue and some people expressed their opinion that we want more than just a proxy service but we did not formally adopted a recommendation (since nobody asked to formally adopt such a recommendation). I am personally glad to hear that the RIPE NCC decided to make the mirroring service available in ipv6 though! Also, I appreciate that we don't have to formally adopt such recommendations as I think it makes for a much better working relationship where the RIPE NCC takes the initiative and picks up on ideas and discussions that happen in the working group without having to formally request the RIPE NCC to do so (policy issues are obviously a completely different matter!).
- It was agreed that the community needs to produce a revised Internet draft before RIPE 51 to formally address the demands of RFC3177, particularly the /48 recommendation.
This is not what was agreed. It was agreed that it would be useful if an internet draft would be written that potentially could update rfc 3177. We did not discuss a specific timeline (but I don't think anybody would object if it would happen rather sooner than later). In addition, the text 'to formally address the demands of RFC3177' doesn't make any sense to me. I have no idea what that means as rfc 3177 didn't contain any demands. It was expressed by many that the /48 recommendation in rfc 3177 is perhaps a bit too generous and that this could potentially be addressed by adding another category smaller than a /48. However, we started the discussion to make it very clear that we were not going to make decisions during this meeting. It was solely intended to test the waters and get some general idea where people stand at this point in time. In addition, the discussion provided useful input so that a first draft would not be way out of line with current thinking of the RIPE community.
- It was noted that the IPv6 Working Group needs to decide where it wishes to house the new, operational IPv6 mailing list.
Again, the working group didn't decide this. It was brought up that a new mailing list was formed and we received several comments on this topic. Among others that it might not be ideal to have such a list being run by an enthiustic individual as it is important to keep mailarchives preserved even if the individual moves on to pursue other interests. However, this was a comment from the audience, not a decision by the working group. In relation to this topic, I just noticed that the working group website page now mentions:
There is also a global mailing list (not regional RIR/NOG) dedicated to operational matters of the global IPv6 (production, not 6BONE) Internet at:
http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops/
If you are taking part in IPv6 BGP or are interested in global IPv6 operational matters, please join the list. The purpose is to foster exchange of experience and resolve problems which require non-local coordination. The list is also available to discuss problems people face while deploying IPv6.
I did not request the RIPE NCC to put this information on the website neither did the working group endorse this mailing list in any form or way. David Kessens ipv6 wg chair ---