RE: Defintion of Automatic tunnels

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

100% agree with Christian I strongly suggest to the chairs and ADs work
on the specs and stop trying to tell vendors how to build or what to
provide in products we won't listen to your here simply because the
folks here do not do budgets and product decisions per se it is done
based on revenue not computer science.

Like Pekka awhile ago saying "just state no one can deploy IPv6 only
devices"  that is completely absurd no one is going to even listen to
such diatribe in the market.

also I have figured out a way to avoid nat in IM for 3GPP the question
for me is it even worth sharing that pearl here in the IETF or just take
it to 3GPP and TEMS vendors.  Hint is option I found in pdp context
packet.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huitema@windows.microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:19 PM
> To: Alain.Durand@Sun.COM; Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Erik Nordmark; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Defintion of Automatic tunnels
> 
> 
> > So I think it is still pertinent for the IETF to have an opinion on
> the
> > matter
> > and to recommend one approach versus the other, or maybe both if it
> can
> > be proven
> > that there are technical reasons to do so.
> 
> 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."
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
>