Some Measurements on World IPv6 Day from an End-User Perspective
draft-keranen-ipv6day-measurements-04

[Ballot comment]
Can you add some text in the methodology section
describing the details of the IPv6 connectivity at
the site where you performed the measurements?

[Ballot comment]
I take a stronger position than my IESG colleagues on the issue of the graphs being external references that are not even on an IETF site. The graphs are the core of the document.  Therefore this separation of information is a danger to the integrity of the information set, a risk to the permanence of  the record and a serious inconvenience and discourtesy to the reader. 

If this were an IETF stream document I would make this a discuss, but I respect the ISE's judgement on this matter.

[Ballot comment]
I just wonder if the graphs will be accessible 'forever' under this link:http://users.piuha.net/akeranen/drafts/v6day/ ?
But as Stephen said, it would be good to have the graphs in the pdf version of the document and saying this in the ASCII RFC version.

[Ballot comment]


- Be good to add a reference to DNS whitelisting
agreements on p5.

- The graphs should be included in the pdf version
and the ascii version should say that IMO. Not sure
if the RFC editor would be ok with that or not.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Some Measurements on World IPv6 Day from End-User Perspective) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Some Measurements on World IPv6 Day from End-User Perspective'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-09-05. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  During the World IPv6 Day on June 8th, 2011, several key content
  providers enabled their networks to offer both IPv4 and IPv6
  services.  Hundreds of organizations participated in this effort, and
  in the months and weeks leading up to the event worked hard on
  preparing their networks to support this event.  The event was
  largely unnoticed by the general public, which is a good thing since
  it means that no major problems were detected.  For the Internet,
  however, there was a major change on such a small timescale.  This
  memo discusses measurements that the authors made from the
  perspective of an end-user with good IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity.  Our
  measurements include the number of most popular networks providing
  AAAA records for their service as well as delay and connection
  failure statistics.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keranen-ipv6day-measurements/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-keranen-ipv6day-measurements/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

The draft draft-keranen-ipv6day-measurements-03
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742.

The following is some background for this draft, please forward it
to IESG along with this request ...

From the draft's abstract:
"During the World IPv6 Day on June 8th, 2011, several key content
providers enabled their networks to offer both IPv4 and IPv6
services.
...
This memo discusses measurements that the authors made from the
perspective of an end-user with good IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity. Our
measurements include the number of most popular networks providing
AAAA records for their service as well as delay and connection
failure statistics."

Bob Hinden reviewed it for me, he noted:
"This draft has four informative references with links to graphs that
may not be stable enough for an RFC. The ISE and authors should
consider finding a better repository for these as they are important
for the document as we can't include them directly in the ASCII
version of the document. They should also be shown as normative
references as they are essentially part of the document."

It might also be useful to publish a companion pdf version of this
document with the graphs included in the document.

These are RFC Production issues - however they've agreed that
publishing a (non-normative) .pdf version will be OK, and the
authors have agreed to help with that.

Thanks, Nevil (ISE)

--
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org