The IETF v6ops working group is chartered to improve the operation of IPv6. We have several active documents right now that would benefit from broader operator feedback. For instance, there is current active discussion on: Requirements for IPv6 Routers <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs> This document provides a list of requirements for operators’ routers. Is it clear and exhaustive? Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis> What transition technologies should all CPE vendors put in their devices? The current version proposes all of: 464xlat, DS-Lite, lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T, 6in4, and 6rd, as well as IPv4 multicast over IPv6. There are related documents that split out some requirements for further discussion. Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis> Is this a useful update to the existing Happy Eyeballs specification (rfc6555)? Should we update Happy Eyeballs? Considerations For Using Unique Local Addresses <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations> Are ULAs useful, or are they a natural and risky predecessor to IPv6 NAT? It would help future IPv6 operations if current operators would read these documents and comment on them on the mailing list: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops Note Well that comments become part of the IETF record, and thank you for them. Lee v6ops co-chair