RE: Request to Publish ISATAP

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> >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

I must say that I oversaw Fred's request for standard track. I was
confused by the reference to Harald's communication, which was
explicitly about experimental RFC. Shame on me!

I agree that the only side-channel should be for publication as
experimental, not standard track; I also agree that experimental
documents should not attempt to obsolete or modify the content of
standards.

I think that the WG should OK experimental publication of ISATAP,
because it will freeze the draft, which would actually help
experimenting. As I wrote in the previous message, we can always publish
a standard track document later.

-- Christian Huitema