RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

Here is the closure on the Addressing issue for the WAN interface of the
CPE Router.  We could not understand Shin's emails to the mailer, so we
had left it to meeting him at this IETF.  He told us yesterday, in the
NTT IPV6 DSL deployment, the home user uses a Windows PC running routing
code and that PC is a CPE Router for them.  That was the disconnect in
our heads with him - we never thought the PC host he was referring to is
a router. Once we learnt their CPE Router is a Windows PC, we obviously
appreciate his concern if Windows Vista runs the strong host model - the
PC terminates PPP that needs a GUA.  

The following sentences were added to the end of the Unnumbered Model
section to close with Shin and NTT.  

[The unnumbered model is incompatible with the strong host model on the
CPE router. The unnumbered model may be inappropriate for use with
certain broadband deployments where a device that uses the strong host
model can operate as a CPE Router.]  

Further, the first sentence of the Basic IPv6 Provisioning has been
changed as to

[The CPE Router MUST support at least one of two WAN interface models,
one of which will be active on the CPE Router at any given time.]

As for AT&T (Barbara), or David Miles who works in the DSL Forum, or
Mikael A., they can use any one of our Numbered or Unnumbered model for
their purpose.  We need a new version of the draft to show to these
three folks the latest sections for the two model.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:34 AM
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Alain Durand
Subject: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router
draft is available for review]

There wasn't time in the meeting today for me to ask this:

Where is the open issues list for this draft, so that we can identify
the non-consensus items and drive them to a resolution?

     Brian