Dear colleagues, Please find below a report on the meeting of ITU Study Group 20, that I have just shared with the IPv6 Working Group.
As you may know, the RIPE IPv6 Working Group, earlier this year, was invited to review a draft Recommendation on an IPv6 addressing plan for IoT. That feedback served as input to this Study Group meeting. Regards, Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC > The meeting of ITU Study Group 20 in Wuxi, China, just finished and I’d like > to give you a brief report on the discussions of the work on a draft > Recommendation on IPv6 addressing. > > This meeting was the group's first face-to-face meeting since our discussion > of the draft Recommendation at RIPE 77 in May 2018 and the July 2018 draft > review deadline. The RIPE community's comments were brought to the meeting > as a Liaison Statement. > > Several other parties also submitted their own Contributions, including the > RIPE NCC in its role as an ITU Sector Member. The proposal in our > Contribution, with reference to earlier discussions and your review, was to > discontinue this particular Work Item. The United States Government and ARIN > made Contributions along similar lines, seeking to stop the work developing > this particular Recommendation. This position was also supported by the > United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and several sector members. > > I’d like to highlight that both in their Contribution and interventions, the > US expressed their gratitude to the RIPE community for their extensive review > and feedback on the draft Recommendation. > > The main author of the draft submitted a Contribution with their account of > our discussions at RIPE 77 and the review process, as well as a joint > Contribution with the Beijing University for Post and Telecommunications > providing a case study of an IPv6 address plan. > > Having taken all of these contributions and interventions into consideration, > the focus of the meeting discussion was on whether or not the work should > continue. 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, and the actual text of the draft was not > reviewed or revised during this meeting. > > Unable to reach consensus, the question of whether the work should continue > was deferred upwards to the meeting of the Working Party and finally to the > closing plenary. > > During the closing plenary, the Chairman of Study Group 20 proposed > continuing the work for at least one more meeting on the premise that the > draft’s main author would come back with a Contribution addressing the > concerns raised with the current draft. He emphasised that the work item > would be dropped unless there were contributions and agreement to advance the > text at the next meeting. > > The RIPE NCC accepted the Chairman’s proposal as a constructive way forward. > We look forward to the contributions at the next meeting with the expectation > that they will address the concerns raised during your review. > > We would like to thank you again for the constructive comments raised during > the review process. We would also like thank the Question’s rapporteur, > associate rapporteur and the Study Group’s management team for all their time > and assistance, and of course all the member states and sector members that > participated in this discussion. > > The next meeting of Study Group 20 is scheduled to take place in mid-April, > in Geneva, Switzerland.
