Notetakers: Dave Thaler, Bill Cerveny  Agenda, Sunset4 WG, IETF92           Wednesday, 25 March 2015           15:20-16:20 CDT                      The entire session will be allocated to discussing three items with the goal of restarting forward progress in a WG that has been idle:                      1) draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis           2) draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4           3) future of the WG   Jean-Francois Tremblay agreed to come help edit the docs and present draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis (Jean-Francois Tremblay) almost ready for last call, but needs review from those that have deployed ipv6-only. looking for volunteer reviewers: Mukom Tamon (AfriNIC) volunteered draft-ietf-sunset4-noipv4 (Jean-Francois Tremblay) considerations of using DHCPv6 option to conduct a DoS attack has home scenario in doc looking for any enterprise scenarios to add request for more scenarios that need to be covered Wes George (Chair): "We need some people to look at this and discuss if this is the correct course of action" cablelabs folks? (hint hint) no volunteers in room, chairs will ask on list Future of the working group (Wes George, Chair) two docs pending WG adoption: draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation removed IPR-encumbered text draft-song-sunset4-ipv6only-dns needs more reviews Ted Lemon (AD): what process was used to separate that (IPR-encumbered text in cgn-port-allocation) out? IPR declarations are hard to tell what they apply to.  Suggest doing a new individual submission *with a new filename*, and ask IPR declarers whether they want to submit IPR on the new doc.   Dave Thaler: Then can adopt as a WG doc that marks the new indiv doc as "replaced-by". Ted: yes Wes George polls room about if sunset4 is something someone would be willing to work on ... if not, say why. Lee Howard: this [IPv6-only?] is the most important thing the IETF is working on.  May need to go dormant for a while Dave Thaler: going dormant would give us a chance to go back and revisit gap analysis document ?: wants to get away from dual stack as soon as possible. Lianjin Song: Should draft-song-sunset4-ipv6only-dns doc be here or DNSOp? [Missed initial comment]JT: DNS might be part of the access. You should be continuing discuss this. IPv4 as a Service: "Does this belong to v6ops or sunset4"? Lee Howard: compare charter text between v6ops vs sunset4... adding IPv6 vs running IPv6-only (removing IPv4) is current split Ted Lemon (as individual): if adopt more drafts, may get more participants/energy in sunset4 Mikael Abrahamsson: Is it ok to include no v4 in a RA?  No preference was the previous answer. Mukom Tamon: work on IPv4 as a service needs to progress Wes George: does there need to be a use cases document for v4 as a service? Mukom Tamon: would be useful for solution to be able to point to use cases Andrew Yourtchenko: why is IPv6-only process different from IPv4-only process Lee Howard: devices decide IPv4 only because they get no RA or don't support.  There's no equivalent in IPv4 for lack of IPv4 Mikael Abrahamsson: Nothing stopping doing IPv6 blindly Wes George: Windows had a bug which did v6 blindly JF Tremblay: was correct according to RFC Lee Howard: I think I heard that such a document would be useful... Andrew Yourtchenko: Infrequent RAs and resilient RS was the fallout