[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ISATAP spec stability [Re: ISATAP and admin/IP domains]
Pekka,
Sorry to say this, but I completely agree with Fred. Do you want a few examples ?
I think is not fair this type of messages from a chair. You should be very neutral (unless you clearly state "hat off").
Regards,
Jordi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Templin" <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>
To: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: ISATAP spec stability [Re: ISATAP and admin/IP domains]
> Pekka,
>
> You can pull a similar sort of revision history for any number
> of documents that are now RFCs or soon will be. Your message
> is what once would have been referred to as "yellow journalism"
> and not befitting a dedicated technologist such as yourself.
>
> Fred
> ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
>
> Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> >Whether or not ISATAP is stable or not is beside the original point,
> >so I don't think I'll continue this thread..
> >
> >On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>That's not what I'm saying; ISATAP is an IPv6-over-(foo) document
> >>whose sole purpose is to specify the operation of IPv6 neighbor
> >>discovery over a particular link type.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Right..
> >
> >
> >
> >>As such, it doesn't have any
> >>business specifying things that might be happening further up the
> >>stack. ISATAP is a substrate on top of which other mechanisms
> >>might be layered, but that does NOT mean specifications for
> >>those other mechanisms belong in the ISATAP spec.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's fine, just don't describe that as ISATAP behaviour then (as
> >you did, in the original thread, a few messages back).
> >
> >
> >
> >>Actually, I should have more strongly disagreed with your assertion;
> >>ISATAP is NOT a moving target. ISATAP is stabilized, and I have
> >>not received any input to the contrary.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I have to disagree here.
> >
> >Let's have a look at when different versions of the ISATAP spec were
> >published:
> >
> >draft-templin-ngtrans-v6v4compat-00.txt: Mar 2000
> >draft-templin-ngtrans-v6v4compat-01.txt: Sep 2000
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-00.txt: Mar 2001
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-01.txt: May 2001
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-02.txt: Nov 2001
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-03.txt: Jan 2002
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-04.txt: Apr 2002
> >
> ><ngtrans replaced by v6ops on Aug 2002>
> >
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-05.txt: Oct 2002
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-06.txt: Oct 2002
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-07.txt: Dec 2002
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-08.txt: Dec 2002
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-09.txt: Dec 2002
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-10.txt: Jan 2003
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-11.txt: Jan 2003
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-12.txt: Jan 2003
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-13.txt: Mar 2003
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-14.txt: Aug 2003
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-15.txt: Sep 2003
> >draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-16.txt: Oct 2003
> >
> >.. seems to have been very much of a moving target to me :-). Of
> >course, you'd argue that it *has* been a moving target, but now is
> >frozen. Looking at the spec (there are a large number of things to
> >fix) and its past change history does not convince me.
> >
> >(But of course, this is a fundamental problem caused by the fact that
> >there is no clear goal for ISATAP, no clear objective; it has tried to
> >be "little everything for everybody"; when new uses for it have come
> >up, it has been modified to fit. If there was a clear goal where to
> >apply ISATAP and which direction to develop it, I guess the need for
> >fundamental changes would have gone down a long time ago.)
> >
> >
> >
> >>>On the other hand, when a mechanism does not change substantially any
> >>>more, it's either because (1) people lost interest, or (2) the
> >>>mechanism is clear enough (from every angle) that there is no more
> >>>NEED to substantially refine it further.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>(2) above best describes the case for ISATAP as I understand it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't agree.
> >
> >
> >
>
**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.