Re: Proposed 6to4 work (multicast)

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

I already commented but I'll do so directly and first only on multicast.

On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Our charter asserts that we would be responsible for any updates
> to these RFCs, but I don't know of any specific updates that have
> been proposed.  Did I miss something?

>From the hip, so to speak,

3056: some nits about security considerations possibly.
3068: possibly whether the ipv4 anycast address can be used as the source 
address when the relay tunnels packets
 
>          - Have significant support from the working group, including:
>                  - People with expertise in all applicable areas who are 
> willing
>                    to invest time to review the document, provide feedback, 
> etc.
> 
> Who has read either of these documents and would like to invest time in
> either of them as a v6ops work item?  Obviously Brian.  Are there others?
> Please be specific about which document(s) you are willing to work on.
> Also, are there folks with multicast and/or security backgrounds who
> are willing to review these documents?
> 
>                  - Probable (or current) implementors, if applicable
> 
> Has anyone implemented either of these I-Ds?  Does anyone plan to
> implement them when they are more stable/complete?
> 
>          - Be accepted as a work item by a rough consensus of the WG
>                  - Should reflect WG belief that the document is taking the
>                    correct approach and would be a good starting place for
>                    a WG product
> 
> Who has an opinion on whether we should/shouldn't accept these
> documents as work items?  Please only reply to this if you have _read_
> the document(s).  This is not a general question like "should we work
> on multicast extensions to 6to4?" or "Is security important?", it is a
> specific question about whether or not to accept these documents as
> the basis for our work.  Again, please be specific about which document
> you are discussing.
> 
> Comments on the general approach taken in the documents?  Are they
> correct and complete enough that we are ready to move editorial control
> of them to the WG?  Authors, what are your opinions?

First I'll answer the question you *didn't* ask:  I believe it would be 
good to have "multicast extensions to 6to4" but only if they're 
sufficiently simple and actually workable.

As for the question you did ask, I don't really think the proposed
solution at least currently satisfies these requirements.  At the very
least the applicability would have to be restricted and a few cases that 
make it more complex be cut away.

But if there is sufficient momentum from the others in the w.g., I'm still
willing to work on the draft trying to salvage it.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords