[ipv6-wg] Report from ITU Study Group 20 meeting 3-13 December 2018 in Wuxi, China

Thanks for the clarification.






__________ ursprüngliche Nachricht __________

Von:		Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com>
Datum:	Freitag, 14. Dezember 2018, 11:58:46
An:		"de Brün, Markus" <markus.debruen at bsi.bund.de>
Kopie:	RIPE IPv6 WG <ipv6-wg at 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 at 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.

-- 
Markus de Brün
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI)
Federal Office for Information Security, Germany
Mail: markus.debruen at bsi.bund.de