[Bp_ipv6] BPF-IPv6-draft-ve... - One thing to be careful of is to not ...

Merike Kaeo merike at doubleshotsecurity.com
Wed Nov 23 20:48:45 EST 2016

I was trying to see if I can comment in doc but email is easier (apologies it’s taken a few days to get back but I had a strategic exec meeting last few days and was slammed).

I think it would be good to mention that USG has in past taken initiatives that were definitively a driving force in getting many vendors to seriously look at IPv6 functionality and incorporate into their roadmaps. Since early 2000s. I don’t think pointers would be controversial as long as there was language to state that their previous initiatives helped get IPv6 into vendor products.

- merike

> On Nov 21, 2016, at 12:32 AM, Izumi Okutani (Google Docs)
> Izumi Okutani replied to a comment on BPF-IPv6-draft-version3 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RG8PWxOhsxkEJJdwUkUWN0NFg0cnH4i3L7RFMzeYMf8/edit?disco=AAAAA0cy0vY&usp=comment_email_document>
> 	Merike Kaeo
> One of the case studies submitted to the NTIA (Lee Howard) describes an opportunity for government leadership as below:
> One thing to be careful of is to not discount the issues from US government when there was a mandate that all US government agencies to support IPv6 and for years there were delays (see https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/transition-to-ipv6.pdf <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/transition-to-ipv6.pdf&sa=D&ust=1479667700748000&usg=AFQjCNFoZZOBNf3Y3jCiQOLmVHjnpHdzqA> for example). To make sure there's completeness, when discussing current US government incentives and involvement it may be useful to preface with some language that states that previous US government mandates had to wait for more robust vendor solutions which now is not an issue anymore.
> Izumi Okutani
> Wim and I have commented on this. Would it work to mention the USG has take initiatives in the past already and refer to 2015 document? If this point is controversial, then we'll re-consider how we describe it.
> Reply <mailto:Reply <d+AORGpRfTvMYVfU2Z0cjo03--z2pG9cm6gwJbp0Gm0HJfYtBASUVcdSliGfV9eTuyyY4e9-tNYPFHwkRVjG3QruK0v5teAA9nBv4FIxDaRX6Z_3Gk2Jbb4_Y at docs.google.com>?subject=BPF-IPv6-draft-version3>Open <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RG8PWxOhsxkEJJdwUkUWN0NFg0cnH4i3L7RFMzeYMf8/edit?disco=AAAAA0cy0vY&usp=comment_email_discussion>
> Google Inc. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
> You have received this email because you are mentioned in this thread.Change what Google Docs sends you. <https://docs.google.com/document/docos/notify?id=1RG8PWxOhsxkEJJdwUkUWN0NFg0cnH4i3L7RFMzeYMf8&title=BPF-IPv6-draft-version3>You can reply to this email to reply to the discussion.
> <logo.png>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20161123/517253e5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20161123/517253e5/attachment.sig>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list