A Report on the Temporary IPng Area co-chairs Scott Bradner Allison Mankin IPng area structure % co-chairs % white papers % working groups % directorate % review board white papers % provide simple description of proposals % provide forum for community to express concerns % provide communication channel to non-IETF community % some white papers specifically solicited IPng proposers directorate members (biases & ideas) people active on big-internet IETF and non-IETF researchers in field % open to all % reviewed by directorate and review board, can suggest clarifications will not block publication % submitted as informational RFC white paper requirements % maximum 10 pages! % follow an outline to be developed by directorate can do only part you want to talk about possible contents: executive summary (max 1/2 page), config, admin & operation, extensibility (mobility, flows, policy), scaling, security, timescale, transition & coexistence, action items. % number sections & paragraphs keep numbers, even if only including some sections IPng process (current plan) % since startup on 7 Sept. 1993 % policy on IPng standards some proposal documents already moved to Experimental % directorate selection % ALE WG preliminary charter ---Houston--- % form "requirements" WG % form "transition, coexistence and testing" WG % define & form review board ---post Houston--- % directorate defines white paper outline % solicit white papers about IPng proposals by proposers from wider community about requirements ----Seattle--- % ALE WG presents time frames % requirements WG presents a range of requirements and time frames at which technology could meet them. % transition... WG presents status report ----post Seattle--- % ALE timeframe placed against requirements time frame Area produces ID detailing process time frames % each proposal produces white paper describing how it meets requirements with their accompanying time frames. ----Toronto--- % area co-chairs produce ID of recommendation % extended Last Call issued to request community input % IESG reviews area recommendation in light of community input % IESG approves recommendation or requests additional effort % loop on this page if required (sure hope not) % one protocol advanced to Proposed % AS produced for selected IPng area philosophy % proposals to be made as good as they can be % proposals to be evaluated on technical basis % open process % formal processes for soliciting community input % includes testing phase % can't be debugged in-place proposals to be made as good as they can be % proposals reviewed for clarity & completeness % proposals reviewed for technical feasibility % negative comments should include specific suggestions % iterative process proposals to be evaluated on technical basis % politics not part of decision process % (but real world is out there) % owning not required, cloning ok % review done in context of proposal open process % all documents placed in public archives, including www/gopher IPng server % minutes taken of directorate meetings & made public % directorate email list % directorate email archive published weekly % open directorate meetings at IETF meetings also at Interop if enough interest formal processes for soliciting community input % white papers review process % directorate % review board % extended Last Call testing process % part of transition and coexistence WG effort % strong view that IPng can't be debugged 'in-place' IPng Working Groups existing (S. Knowles) new % Address Lifetime Expectations (ALE) % requirements % transition/coexistence & testing ALE Working Group % recognize overlap with existing CIDR efforts in many forums % gather information from all sources % replicate as little as possible IPng directorate procedures % teleconferences % open meeting at IETF starting with the next one % minutes kept and published % directorate mailing list archived % directorate asked to read & respond to big-internet ( where appropriate ) IPng directorate - background % technical aces % must be able to represent self % must be able to articulate needs of corporation and customers % must be able to articulate needs of community % asked that participation be checked with corporation "sign on" to process no implication that corporation agrees to result % willingness to help juggle 'hot potato' IPng directorate - selection process % solicited names of appropriate people % from inside and outside of IETF community % final selection insured depth on current proposals % solicited advice on list from many % checked with suggested person :-) % repeated process for final list IPng directors & directorate expertise % security % routing % international, national & regional network operation % large users % end system manufacturers % Unix and non-Unix platforms % router manufacturers % theoretical research % protocol architecture IPng directorate J. Allard - Microsoft Steve Bellovin - AT&T Jim Bound - Digital Ross Callon - Wellfleet Brian Carpenter - CERN Dave Clark - MIT John Curran - NEARnet Steve Deering - Xerox Dino Farinacci - Cisco Paul Francis - Bellcore Eric Fleischmann - Boeing Daniel Karrenberg - RARE Mark Knopper - MERIT Greg Minshall - Novell Paul Mockapetris - ISI Rob Ullmann - Lotus Lixia Zhang - Xerox IPng review board % facility to get review and advice from larger community % specific areas of expertise % industry input - but from a person % agree to review documents & make specific suggestions summary % 1st it gotta work % please help us debug process % participate!