Re: spending time on analysis [Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item]

[Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>]

Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Christian Huitema wrote:
>  
>
> > The V6OPS working group is a prime example of the current IETF decease:
> > expanding a lot of energy to achieve no result. The symptom is very
> > clear: vendors are shipping products based on internet drafts, without
> > getting the benefits of IETF peer review. 
> >    
>
> Achieving no result is probably considered a bug rather than feature if
> one believes the IETF exists to provide peer review of the technologies
> the vendors wish to standardize.  I don't.
>  

In the specific instance of ISATAP, I take exception to this remark.
ISATAP was originally developed under government contract and
institutional funding during my employment at SRI International
and therefore *is not* the product of any particular vendor.

What ISATAP *is* is a superior technical approach at solving
real-world needs for IPv6 deployment. This falls squarely under
the auspices of the IETF if only we choose to recognize it and
get on board before the real world passes us by.

The IETF I have known is an organization of brilliant technologists
who are not afraid to push through new technologies to further the
advancement of the Internet. That is why we have an IP-based network
today, and not OSI or any of the other approaches that have fallen by
the wayside over the years.

Pekka, I appeal to you as one of our finest such technologists to get
this train back on the tracks under the IETF auspices so we can go
forward together as it should be.

Fred Templin
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com