> On 14 Dec 2018, at 07:23, de Brün, Markus <[email protected]> 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.
