Re: Defintion of Automatic tunnels

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

Brian said:
> Not quite. My point is more that since the (so far revenue-free) market
> already seems to want both solutions, I don't see that a decision is needed.
> Deployment has moved on since the v6ops charter was written.

Given that this group is supposed to:
1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify
  operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and
  determine solutions or workarounds to those issues.  

it sounds like it should gather information about the issues when deploying
existing transition mechanisms, and not just do nothing as you seem to suggest.
 Christian said:
> This is pretty close to recommending operational procedures, and frankly
> that is not what the IETF does best. The IETF shines when it produces
> sound specifications, or thorough technical analyses. But operation
> practices are better left to practicians, which may be another way of
> saying "to the market."

And the charter has:
The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines for the
operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides guidance for
network operators on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only
networks, as well as into new network installations.

So there seems to be disconnects between both of your views and 
the charter.

  Erik