Re: Request to Publish ISATAP

[itojun@iijlab.net]

>I re-read the ISATAP draft, and I am at a loss with this comment. The
>draft cites 2893 as it goes on using the 2893 nomenclature, but I don't
>see where it actually proposes to obsolete either 2893, or mechanisms
>defined in 2893. In any case, the proposition was for an experimental
>publication; experiments come and go, and certainly do not obsolete
>standard track recommendations.

	to correct your understandings -
	please see the last part of the previous email Margaret have sent.
	(the part where an email from Fred is quoted verbatim)

	- Fred asked to publish it as a standard-track document
	- he suggested that ISATAP obsoletes automatic tunnelling in RFC2893
	  (::10.2.2.2).  the chairs does not agree with it and there's no
	  consensus in the wg seen from the chairs

itojun


From: Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>
To: randy@psg.com, bwijnen@lucent.com, narten@us.ibm.com,
   erik.nordmark@sun.com
Cc: harald@alvestrand.no, tgleeson@cisco.com, mohitt@microsoft.com,
   dthaler@microsoft.com, osprey67@yahoo.com
Subject: Plea to ADs to sponsor isatap-07 for standards track		<----
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:32:48 -0800 (PST)
(snip)
In the spirit of Harald Alvestrand's 11/19/02 message to v6ops
entitled "On NGTRANS, transition mechanisms and consortia", I am
issuing a plea to the ADs to sponsor this document for standards
track based on the obvious merit that it obsoletes the automatic	<----
tunneling mechanisms specified in RFC 2893.				<----