multi6 Working Group IETF-61, Washington D.C November 8-12, 2004

Agenda - November 9 (1/2) Administrivia5 minutes Agenda Bashing5 minutes WG document status (chairs) 5 minutes (extra time if significant Last Call or IESG issues arise) draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-01.txt With IESG draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt WG Last Call ended Nov. 3 draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt WG Last Call ended Nov. 3 draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt WG Last Call ended Nov. 3

Agenda - November 9 (2/2) Design team- presentations and discussion 3 hours total General report from design team (Erik Nordmark) 10 min Multihoming L3 Shim Approach (Erik Nordmark) 30 min draft-nordmark-multi6dt-shim-00.txt Hash Based Addresses (HBA) (Marcelo Bagnulo) 30 min draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-hba-00.txt Functional decomposition of the M6 protocol (Marcelo Bagnulo) 30 min draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-functional-dec-00.txt Failure Detection and Locator Selection in Multi6 30 min draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00.txt

Agenda - November 10 Design team- presentations and discussion 3 hours total (Cont.) Multi6 Application Referral Issues (Erik Nordmark) 30 min draft-nordmark-multi6dt-refer-00.txt Final discussion on design team 20 min draft-huitema-multi6-addr-selection-00.txt (Marcelo Bagnulo) 15 min draft-huitema-multi6-ingress-filtering-00.txt draft-arifumi-multi6-sas-policy-dist-00.txt (Arifumi Matsumoto) 15 min (also see draft-hirotaka-dhc-source-address-selection-opt-00.txt and draft- arifumi-ipv6-nd-source-address-select-01) Next steps for the WG (Chairs & AD) until EOT

Administrivia - Note Well Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to: the IETF plenary session, any IETF working group or portion thereof, the IESG or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG, the IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB, any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices, the RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 3667 and RFC Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice. Please consult RFC 3667 for details

Administrivia Volunteer scribe? Volunteer jabber scribe? Please state your name at the microphone! Please fill in and circulate the blue-sheets Presenters, please give presentation on Kurtis USB memory stick…

Agenda bashing

WG Document status draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-threats-01.txt With IESG draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02.txt WG Last Call ended Nov. 3 draft-ietf-multi6-things-to-think-about-00.txt WG Last Call ended Nov. 3 draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt WG Last Call ended Nov. 3

Next Steps for the WG

Outcome from the DT Question to the Working group Do we agree that the way forward is the direction and work produced by the DT? Modulo the missing pieces (including choosing site-exit routers)

Next Steps for the WG Multi6 have come a long way All milestones documents are either at the IESG or very close Some work remains Re-iterate DT documents Complete WG milestones Last milestone suggests that we need to produce a solution architecture document

Proposal from the chairs Complete the work in multi6 including the architecture document Do not publish the documents from the DT as RFCs but accept as WG documents Publish the solution architecture document as an informational RFC, or kick it over the wall? Close multi6 down Before 03/05, charter a new WG in the Internet Area Alternatively, complete the architecture document here Develop protocols, APIs? for the solution

Question to the WG Do we agree to charter a new working group in the Internet Area? Do we agree to close down multi6 when work done? Do we agree on the need for a solution architecture document?